Making Moral Vaccine Decisions - Part H: Responses to Comments by L Fischer --- Update A

 +

JMJ

 L Fischer left this comment under Making Moral Vaccine Decisions - Part F: Our Obligations and I thought it would be easier to compose my response in a separate post.

First the comment (emphasis mine):

LfischerMarch 4, 2021 at 5:00 PM

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!

How much of this is true? 

I suspect that this break-down will come across as arrogant, liberal and cruel to some, but alas I can't control how people feel, I can only offer a principled response to the accusations laid at my feet ...

Breaking it down piece by piece ...

1. It is absolutely true that there is no such thing as 'less murder'. 
1. I doubt that Lfischer was present at either of the two abortions that taint some of the vaccines being developed today.
   
2. Likewise, I doubt they were there when present when US troops perpetrated the massacre at Wounded Knee.
3. By the same extension, I very much doubt that they stood beside Dr. Mengele and other Nazi scientists as they performed human experimentation. Some results of which, however few, may have found its way into technology we use today.
   
4. The same goes for slavery, idolatry and all the other sins and evils perpetrated by people in the past that, in some way, we derive a benefit.
5. Is it unreasonable that our benefiting from those sinful acts is limited by the distance of time and the chain of actions that brings us the benefit?
6. No, it is not unreasonable and the Catholic Church has long understood the difference between committing the act, helping the act and "remotely" benefiting from the act.
   
7. i.e. the Catholic Principle of cooperation in evil.
   
2. Now, I believe that some people are scared of the pain, suffering and death that can result from contracting and mounting an ineffective natural immune response to the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
1. It is not liberal to fear these things, the impulse of self-preservation is a part of how God created us.
2. I think that the media's promotion of the FUD is more the fault of their readers than the media.  Just for clarity, I include in the concept of 'media', the regular 'new' sources such as CNN, ABC, Associate Press, Reuters as well as ... new alternate organizations such as Lifesite News, Rebel News, Church Militant, and even 'Traditional Catholic" news agencies.
1. Each is run by people and they will have their own perspectives, agendas and confirmation biases.
2. The more we consume their products, the more they will produce.
3. The more unthinking and unprincipled a people the easier they are to manipulate.
4. Just being a consumer of 'news' that makes you feel justified in your own perspective makes you vulnerable to manipulationg.
5. So don't just consume it, develop a foundation from which to understand and assess how this relates to THE  CATHOLIC TRUTH.
   
3. I've seen the 99.9% chance of survival thrown about as a 'truth statement' a few times now.  Is it the truth or just Lfischer's truth???
1. If it is Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) then this is wrong. The IFR for seasonal flu is 0.1%.  Sorry, wrong disease.
   
2. If it is the Case Fatality Rate (CFR) then it is also wrong. 
1. In Canada we have had 22,192 deaths out of 881,761 cases, giving us a 2.6% CFR
2. That means that if you catch it you have a 97.4% chance of survival.
3. It is also a fact that for those over 50 the CFR rises to: 7.4%
4. It is also a fact that Lfischer et al don't get to decide who lives and who dies.  
5. Likewise there is no true safety in statistics for the individual, only for the whole population. 
6. Only God knows and decides who will live and who will die if they get the virus.
4.  The mask thing is a red herring.
1. I read a scientific paper that described a  study about the efficacy. The design of the experiment looked valid and demonstration of the efficacy is a synonym for proven.
2. I do find it humorous that those who say that "masks don't work" are echoing Fauci et al's perspective early in the pandemic.
5. I have no doubt that Lfischer is totally against a vaccine --- I just which I knew which one.
1. There are a couple dozen vaccines in development and about a dozen that are being used across the world.
2. Now Fischer can decide to be "totally against", something and at the same time be completely wrong in their assessment.
3. Should I seek to be inoculated with a morally tainted vaccine, I do not seek Fischer's approval, nor do I care for their judgement of my decision. My decision will be based on Catholic Principles and facts. Not half-truths, innuendoes spread by the FUD-Rucksacks.
6. I don't know what harmful components Fischer is talking about.
1. Millions of people have been inoculated with different vaccines and I haven't seen any huge onslaught of deaths as a results.  
2. Note I said 'huge onslaught'.  There will always be deaths and adverse events. There are always risks of these events and if they are significant then they will stop using the vaccines.
3. So I have a challenge for Fischer: You say that there are harmful components in the 'vaccines'.  So which vaccine?  What harmful product?  As one priest said in a sermon, in answer to an accusation say two words: PROVE IT!
7. STEM Cells?  Say what?  
1. This is too good to pass up.
2. First of all, it depends on the source of the STEM Cells that makes it either moral or immoral. For those of you who can't tell the difference - immoral = sinful.
3. Second of all, I have not seen any scientific references to theuse of STEM cells in the production of vaccines. So I say again:  PROVE IT!
8. Concerning when it is or isn't a sin ... well just read all the other articles in this series.
   

Feel free to criticize and take apart my arguments if I'm wrong, but as I have said earlier:

PROVE IT!

 

P^3

 

 

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 

 

 

Update A - March 7, 2021

LFischer left the following comment (to this post):

 

“ All three vaccines have some form of connection to abortion-derived cell lines, ” - Vatican News

Also from Vatican News (and I don’t agree with this either, but apparently you do) “ : “When ethically irreproachable Covid-19 vaccines are not available … it is morally acceptable to receive COVID-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted foetuses in their research and production process”, the statement stresses that “if one can choose among equally safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines, the vaccine with the least connection to abortion-derived cell lines should be chosen.”

In response I write: The truth is the truth, irregardless of who passes it on. Just because it is Rome who actually provides an analysis does not make it incorrect. I have reviewed the Vatican Statements in comparison with the sources cited earlier in this series and found them to be correct.

This is disgusting, as all this is saying is when it fits you or any other Catholic and their narrative, then it becomes acceptable. It’s ok to pick and choose your sin. Your trying to convince yourself that one vaccine has less stem cells than the other so it’s ok to use, God will forgive me for that one. You keep telling yourself that, but stop telling others that it’s sinful to NOT take a vaccine. Furthermore, can you show anyone where in the Bible that it says it’s a sin to not take a vaccine?
Your a hypocrite and anyone else that is using that excuse to use a vaccine that is morally wrong to use. Again, God have mercy on you. 

Wow, LFischer packs quite a bit into this part of their comment.

First, I don't think I ever stated that it was sinful to 'NOT" take a vaccine. 

• LFischer: telling others that it’s sinful to NOT take a vaccine
• Tradical: telling others that it's NOT sinful to take a [morally tainted] vaccine [in some situations]

 Word placement and context is important to convey the correct message.

Second, I don't know where LFischer gets the idea that the vaccines contain "stem cells". The vaccines don't contain stem cells and for that matter they don't contain the cells from the abortions. Quick summary: some cells from the aborted babies were used to create "immortal cell lines". These cell lines are used to produce elements for the vaccine.  See this Wikipedia article for more information(link). 

 Thirdly, in reply to the 'morally wrong' comment. I have demonstrated that, consistent with both pre and post conciliar Catholic Moral Theology, in certain circumstances we can, be inoculated with morally tainted vaccines.  I realise that some, maybe many, Catholics (Traditional and otherwise) will be uncomfortable with this conclusion.  

This is less about me and more about the post-conciliar ignorance of Catholics.  An ignorance of Catholic Teaching - in this case moral theology. This ignorance has resulted in a cohort of Catholics that are relying upon their instincts. 

If these instincts are malformed, it is a recipe for disaster. Ignorance enables an unconsidered reliance upon instincts ... or perhaps more appropriately emotions.  If it feels right, they go with it.  Well, that leads us to the disaster of the Second Vatican Council (the laity just went along with it). It also leads us to various errors such as Sede Vacantism and situations where Catholics don't recognize as Catholic basic teachings of the Catholic Church.  LFischer has provided a good example of this situation.  They appear unable to separate the teaching from the teacher.

Until this is resolved, I fear that the Catholic Church will continue to limp along under the burden of the ignorance of her members.

Lastly, LFischer is resorted to name calling (hint: hypocrite). Something that I do not appreciate. When people start name calling, my finger hovers over the 'delete comment' button. Either act as a Catholic or I shall start to delete your comments.

P^3