A Reply to Martin Blackshaw’s FLAWED Remnant article titled: FLAWED: SSPX Advice on Abortion-tainted Vaccines - Part B: Discussion Thread - Updated
<<< Updated with Summary Diagram >>>
The discussion on my original Blackshaw article (link) has wound down, so I thought I would make it easier to read by posting a snapshot here.
I have also added my own responses (long overdue) to Athanasius' questions.
I think I will address another controversial topic in the future: Ectopic Pregnancies ... does the Mother have to die?
P^3
====================================
Attached below is a diagram summarizing the research in the various series. Also, I had a great discussion with Mr. Smith and will post something that occurred in the next couple of weeks.
For Athanasius (Bishop and the other one as well) the discussion rests on the following:
- Are the Principles of Cooperation in Evil and Double Effect correctly summarized.
- Is the inoculation with a morally tainted vaccine a remote cooperation in the evil of the murder of the child who was the unwilling donor of the HEK-293 and the other cell lines used in the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines?
I know that Athanasius replied at one point and will endeavour to respond in the text below.
P^3
Comments
"Mr. Blackshaw's article is not the first and, I fear, will not be the last to propagate this error. Based on my review of the origins of the HEK-293 and PER.C6 cell lines are not stem cell lines. Period ... end-stop."
Reply
https://cogforlife.org/per-c6-hek-293/
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/a-hill-worth-dying-on-expert-explains-how-aborted-baby-cells-taint-covid-vaccines
AnonymousApril 15, 2021 at 8:59 PMSo - where in the links does it say that the cells are 'Stem Cells'.
Reply
When I searched through the articles the phrase did not appear?
P^3
TradicalIt's apples and oranges, is it not? Back in 2010 the term "Embryonic Stem Cell" was used regularly used to describe the research we're talking about, but has since been abbreviated to "Fetal Cell Lines". Here's a linked example: https://cogforlife.org/2009/05/11/pfizer-to-use-embryonic-stem-cells-in-new-drugs/
At any rate, the real issue here is that babies were/are removed from the womb alive and carved up without anaesthetic (which would be cell damaging) in order to harvest organs for medical research. This harvesting process was/is co-ordinated with abortion doctors to ensure live specimens. Around 5 minutes after bodily death cells become medically unviable, which destroys the suggestion that cell lines may have been harvested from miscarried babies. And, as Pamela Aker, an expert in the field, reveals to us, the HEK-293 line, which means Human Embryonic Kidney used 293 times before a successful experiment was achieved, involved many more than one or two Herodian killings. According to Miss Acker, we're looking at hundreds, if not thousands, of abortions for this type of research on a global scale. Additionally, since these cells are not immortal (they have a shelf life), continued abortions are required to keep vaccination research on track and up to date. It is already established that the Chinese created a new line with an abortion in 2015. There's a lot more baby kiling going on by medical researchers than we're being told and I will never understand how any Catholic could ever consider benefitting from such a Satanic industry. Taking these vaccines is not nearly as remote from the sin of abortion as people believe. The vaccines are historically, currently and intrinsically connected to abortion, without which brutal murder of innocents they would not exist, yet Catholics in this modern era of utter selfishness think it fine to use the benefits of a "sin crying to heaven for vengeance" on the nonsense grounds that verbally protesting abortion-tainted vaccines while making use of them in the name of "remote" participation in evil is morally acceptable and not in the least encouraging further pharmaceutical R&D using murdered babies to benefit humanity.
One final point. There is now a very real safety issue over the use of these vaccines, many adverse reactions, some fatal. That's what happens when man plays God and nature is outraged. According to Dr. Mike Yeadon, former VP with Pfizer, we may soon witness a human catastrophe unmatched in history as a result these COVID vaccines.
Stem Cell vs HEK-293 et al: Nope two very different things. Further, there are moral sources of both embryonic and fetal cells.
Reply
Pamela Aker: She is hardly an expert. As I remember it, she has a 'Masters' not a PhD and she didn't work in the lab very long to be considered an expert.
HEK-293:
- From my read of the paper the she cited, it was unclear if this was the 293rd experiment using those specific cells or if it was with cells from different abortions.
- In the moral theology, there is a causal link to only one murder.
I will never understand:
- Then you don't understand the principles involved. Either the cooperation is remote or it is not. The volume of murders doesn't make a difference in the principles. I recommend you read the whole series.
- If you reject the principles, then you need to stop using a who swath of products.
Human cell-lines derived from murdered babies are used in a wide range of processes. Before you jump to the conspiracy theory - no you aren't eating babies or putting on makeup made from ground up babies.
What you are doing is cooperating in evil at the same level as the vaccines because morally tainted cell-lines were used at some point in the process to either discover or test various ingredients.
- Final Point: There are always adverse reactions. Yeadon's prediction is just that - a prediction. He doesn't know the future any more that you do, at this point it is simply Fear - Uncertainty - Doubt ... unless he offers some proof.
P^3"..there are moral sources of both embryonic and fetal cells."
Reply
I would like to see links to official sources on that claim.
"Pamela Aker: She is hardly an expert. As I remember it, she has a 'Masters' not a PhD and she didn't work in the lab very long to be considered an expert."
Masters or PhD is really immaterial. She knows her business, which is clear from her experience and the technical depth of her interview with LSN.
"HEK-293:
- From my read of the paper the she cited, it was unclear if this was the 293rd experiment using those specific cells or if it was with cells from different abortions.
- In the moral theology, there is a causal link to only one murder."
She clarified this in the LSN interview: "...HEK stands for Human Embryonic Kidney, and 293 stands for the 293rd experiment that a particular researcher did to develop a cell line... for 293 experiments you need far more than one abortion. And we're talking probably 100s of abortions. This was done with the collaboration of some hospitals. And there was a group in Sweden that was involved in developing the WI-38 cell line, so a different cell line, but they routinely were aborting babies for the use in trying to develop fetal cell lines..."
Seems the "moral theology" you refer to arises from misinformation and should be re-evaluated.
"If you reject the principles, then you need to stop using a who swath of products."
Once full knowledge is gained in respect to a particular product that uses fetal cell lines then, yes, we are obliged to stop benefitting from that product since it is a proposed good resulting from an evil action, which is never morally acceptable. Evil side effects from good actions is morally licit, not the other way around.
"Human cell-lines derived from murdered babies are used in a wide range of processes. Before you jump to the conspiracy theory - no you aren't eating babies..."
I do know that. However, the moral outrage is in the killing of babies, "a sin crying to heaven for vengeance", not in how the remains are used.
"What you are doing is cooperating in evil at the same level as the vaccines because morally tainted cell-lines were used at some point in the process to either discover or test..."
And since the vaccines rely on continued use of aborted fetal cell lines for their manufacture and testing, which is current and intrinsic to them, there can be no claim to mere "remote" participation.
"- Final Point: There are always adverse reactions. Yeadon's prediction is just that - a prediction. He doesn't know the future any more that you do, at this point it is simply Fear - Uncertainty - Doubt ... unless he offers some proof."
It troubles me that you dismiss authorities like Pamela Acker and Dr. Mike Yeadon with such flippancy. Dr. Yeadon in particular is a highly regarded scientist, a former Vice President and Chief Medical Researcher with Pfizer over many decades. What he says in this regard cannot be dismissed lightly given his enormous experience with viruses and vaccines.
The fears of Dr. Yeadon arise from his participation in failed Coronavirus vaccines in the past, always due to delayed adverse reactions. It is a fact that prior to COVID-19 science spent decades in failed Coronavirus vaccine experiments, yet now there is a miraculous array of them for COVID, all rushed through the system and currently being imposed on humanity with irresponsible, some say diabolic, urgency for a virus which England's Chief Medical Officer declared was "relatively harmless for most people".
Thousands of deaths and other adverse reactions are already being reported around the world in respect to these vaccines, which is why some governments have suspended their use. It is clear from this that Dr. Yeadon's warning is grounded in science, experience and evidence.
Your objections appear to amount to what Bishop Schneider calls "sophistic argument".Pamela Aker: ... and you are in a position to assess her academic and competency in this matter?
Yeadon: I work with highly regarded scientists and I know that they can't predict the future. Anyway, you have slipped into a discussion on safety and various risk statements. At this point I would like to focus on the moral theology.
Peter has made an excellent observation:
There is a single agent involved performing a single action. We are not the person committing the primary action - but the recipient at the end of a long chain of actions. Hence the reason why it is a remote cooperation in evil.
P^3oops - official sources - google is your friend. But be careful you are in a position of remote cooperation with evil when you use any of the search engines these days.
P^3
I rebutted the author’s article in the Remnant comments. He simply doesn’t grasp that Double Effect requires a single agent responsible for both effects.
ReplyExcellent way to express it!!
Thanks!
P^3
I rebutted the author’s article in the Remnant comments. He simply doesn’t grasp that Double Effect requires a single agent responsible for both effects.
ReplyThe moral theology is really quite straightforward, no need to go into distracting discussions about agents when intent is the fundamental element in question.
Reply
Two examples of licit remote co-operation with evil:
1. A doctor may licitly administer powerful pain killing medication to a terminally ill patient in agony knowing that the medication will likely shorten that patient's life. The initial action is good and licit, i.e., killing extreme pain. The shortening of life as a result is an undesired evil arising from that fundamentally good action.
2. Doctors attempting to save the life of a young woman with cancer may licitly administer chemotherapy to save her life knowing that she may suffer the evil side effect of permanent infertility as a result. Again, note the fundamental action is good, not evil.
Now consider a pharmaceutical industry which commences from the fundamentally evil action of killing babies in order to produce medical cures. This is the complete opposite of the two examples above and is never morally licit.
According to the moral principle of “double effect,” it is morally permitted, in cases of necessity, to employ an action which simultaneously produces two effects, one good and one evil, provided that: (a) only the good effect is willed, and (b) the good effect does not come from the evil effect.
Hence, the principle of the “double effect” cannot be invoked in the use of vaccines produced or tested with the use of aborted fetal cells because the good effect, i.e., medical cure, is precisely obtained by means of the evil effect / action, i.e., the immoral process of using aborted fetal cells. Thus, the use of such vaccines is morally illicit.
It is sinful to do evil to accomplish good (Rom. 3:8). Thus, it is sinful to make use of a good effect/benefit that has been immediately (or intrinsically) derived from, or obtained by, an evil means. Using a covid-19 vaccine developed with, or tainted with, or tested with aborted fetal cells would constitute using an evil means (aborted fetal cells) in order to accomplish a good end (a medical cure). Therefore, the use of vaccines developed with the use of aborted fetal cells is immoral and not permitted.
Even if a vaccine was only tested with the use of aborted fetal cells/DNA, this still constitutes an illicit and sinful cooperation in the use of an evil/immoral means as a necessary condition for its production and use. Furthermore, the use of these vaccines supports and cooperates in the continuation of the evil action, i.e., the use aborted fetal cells by the pharmaceutical industry in the production and/or testing of vaccines – which in turn supports and cooperates in the continuation of the sin of abortion which is required for the extraction of these fetal cells.1. This is getting quite involved, so depending on how you answer my question below, I will probably breakout this discussion into a separate post.
2. Please read the article linked below and let me know if you agree or disagree with the principles as I understand them.
https://tradicat.blogspot.com/2021/02/making-moral-vaccine-decisions-part.html
P^3
I would appreciate your take on this: https://catholiccitizens.org/issues/church-state-relations/93628/bishop-schneider-on-covid-vaccines-the-ends-cannot-justify-the-means/
ReplyTradical
Reply
I disagree with the principles you express because they are your unqualified interpretation and they proceed from the common error that only one abortion took place to produce the cell lines used in vaccines when in fact hundreds of abortions have taken place throughout the pharmaceutical R&D process.
However, I do agree with the principles expressed by Bishop Athanasius Schneider and the other signatories to the article I linked above. I also agree with the principles expressed by Don Pietro Leone, here: https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2021/04/don-pietro-leone-chains-of-evil.html
And finally, I have responded to Peter Kay's contribution more extensively over at the Remnant, if you care to read it. I would have posted it here if it were not for the word limit to posts. I think we have really reached the end of this exchange, for it is clear that we are not going to agree. Personally, I view all modern arguments favouring vaccines under certain conditions as "sophistry", to quote Bishop Schneider. The traditional prelates are the ones I listen to in the matter because they are the only ones expressing the authentic moral teaching of the Church in these times of confusion and compromise.Athanasius,
Reply
First thank you for engaging. I believe that you are correct as we will not agree as we do not agree on principles.
Regarding:
" ... I disagree with the principles you express because they are your unqualified interpretation (A) and they proceed from the common error that only one abortion took place to produce the cell lines used in vaccines when in fact hundreds of abortions have taken place throughout the pharmaceutical R&D process (B)...."
With respect to:
A. Assuming your comment of "unqualified interpretation" references my academic qualification. True, I am not a trained theologian. My academic credentials are in engineering sciences and management sciences.
A "disqualification" by what I perceive as another amateur theologian on these grounds is completely invalid. Even if you had some theological training, it would be fallacious to simply dismiss my arguments out of hand. What is of value are my arguments and principles.
My reasoning is based on cited Moral Theology sources that I found to be consistent pre and post Second Vatican Council. I further examined both the Vatican and SSPX arguments and found them consistent.
If you disagree, then it is necessary to address the underlying principles as opposed to relying on sentiment.
B. The fact that murders continue and that there is continued benefit / profit from them is largely irrelevant from the moral liciety (sp) of the reception of a particular vaccine (N.B. I have already addressed this factor in the series).
From a moral theology perspective there is a causal chain to only one murder - that of the baby whose cells were used to produce the cell lines that are used in either the production or testing of various COVID vaccines. There may be up to 2 cell lines that are implicated in the COVID vaccines. But, to my knowledge, only the HEK-293 and PER-C6 (... I think that is the identifier) are used in the COVID vaccines and only one or the other.
That is the "single" murder in which we remotely cooperate.
I just scanned Dr. van der Eb's testimony on how the HEK-293 cell line was developed and what is unclear is whether he performed 293 experiments with the same cell culture or tried with different samples. These experiments may be been with human cells or animal cells. It is unknown. However, in the testimony he only describes a single source for the HEK-293 cells that were cultured. Ergo only one murder is linked to this cell line.
Lastly, keep in mind that Ms. Aker does not know what was involved in the experiment, she is making a guess.
P^3Tradical
I think I should point out that the information I have provided is from traditional prelates and priests, including SSPX priests - nothing is proposed from my own interprestations and deductions. Like you I am not a trained theologian, hence I would never engage in so serious a subject on the basis of my own intepretations or deductions.Athanasius,
Very well, for our readers:
1. The SSPX has reviewed my work and there are a couple of priests that monitor my work and analysis with great regularity. They have provided correction from time to time - including the table cited below.
2. As noted earlier, I have cited and relied upon authorized works and for the most part simply confirmed that the Vatican and SSPX documents on the morality of vaccines etc are consistent with these other pre-conciliar authorities.
3. Table 1 and Figure 1 (see link below) summarize both the doctrine on cooperation with evil and the principle of double-effect.
http://tradicat.blogspot.com/2021/02/making-moral-vaccine-decisions-part.html
4. Bishop Schneider et al are in disagreement with the SSPX on this issue and a recourse to pre-conciliar authorities has demonstrated who is consistent with those authorities and who is not. While there is significant prejudice against anything emanating from Rome, refusal based on these grounds alone is faulty.
Thank you and I remain willing to engage further if you so desire.
P^3
This comment was deleted by me because it was a short private communication to the blog editor containing personal information that I requested not be shared publicly on this platform.
Athanasius,
Dear Athanasius,
My sincere apologies.
When I opened the message in the blogger interface it only showed a portion of the message and after a long day at work I clicked release - thinking that I would ready the entire post at a later time.
Again my apologies.
If you still wish to contact me, please send an email ...
Cordially,
Tradical
P^3Tradical
Absolutely no problem, I understand. No harm done anyway. Thank you for supplying an email address for the more private stuff.
God bless.Thanks - I'll probably take it down in the next couple of days.
Cheers!
P^3
Tradical,
I didn't have to read too much of that article you linked before concluding that it is definitely not consistent with the conditions set out in Catholic moral theology regarding either the "double effect" or "remote mediate co-operation", as proposed by the Vatican and the SSPX to justify at least restricted benefitting from abortion-tainted vaccines.
In relation to the principles underpinning the "double effect", for example, you correctly write: "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..."
Surely, by these words, you must realise that you have dismissed your own argument, for the supposed good in the case of these vaccines is not a good arising before or simultaneously with an unwanted evil in an action that is morally indifferent, but rather from an original evil/immoral action perpetrated with evil intent in the interests of belatedly arriving at an envisioned good. In fine, the abortions for research purposes pre-date by several years the arrival of the vaccines, thereby rendering the "double effect" defence of those vaccines moot.Tradical Note A
The answer is no, I have not dismissed my own argument.
- If you look carefully at the diagram above, we are not helping the Doctor (ie.Agent) to murder the baby. That baby died at his (or her) hands decades ago.
- So it is impossible for us to be in an 'immediate cooperation' with that evil act.
- Nor is there a moral connection between the act of inoculation and that murder. We are separated by time and a long series of separate acts so we cannot influence that act by providing assistance to the murderer.
- That means that we are in a remote cooperation of evil and the act of being inoculated is, in itself morally good or at least neutral.
- So to be clear, we are NOT performing an evil act in order to obtain a good effect.
- That is what Rome (surprisingly) concluded as did the SSPX. I also made the same conclusion.
Again, as I have stated before, the Church has always condemned the proposition that it is licit to do evil that good may come of it. These vaccines started life as an envisaged good arising later from a fundamentally evil and immoral act. Since, then, the good did not arise before, or concurrently with, an action that was either originally moral or morally indifferent, but rather clearly evil and immoral, we are forbidden by Catholic moral teaching from enjoying its supposed benefits.As regards "remote mediate co-operation", this erroneous argument is based solely on the foundation of a blatant falsehood that only one baby was aborted many decades ago in order to supply cell lines used since to research and develop vaccines.
Not only is this argument insulting to those with even a basic understanding of the extent of pharmaceutical R&D into vaccines by means of abortion cell lines over many decades, it is clearly and evidently false.Tradical: There is no moral connection - even in a remote sense - to those murders.
You have already rejected the declarations of Pamela Acker in this regard as "guesswork", but others of equal knowledge and experience are saying exactly the same as she in respect to what has actually being going on secretly for decades within the pharmaceutical industry.
Tradical: I don't know where you've been, but in that case it was a very poorly kept secret. I've known for over a decade.
Here's a link to one such source, not so easy to dismiss by reason of the links it provides to documented evidence.
https://avoicefortruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/White-Paper-Abortion-Human-Fetal-Cell-Industry-Vaccines.pdf
One of the stand-out quotes from this lengthy article is as follows:
"...In the area of vaccines, some Christians and ministries have unknowingly taken positions in contradiction to their own core value of the sanctity of human life, and have based those positions on intentionally deceptive and incorrect information promoted by the industry itself. In contrast, the history presented here shows an industry, no matter how much perceived good it provides, that is built on a foundation of consistently violating the God-given value and dignity of preborn children for over half a century. The human fetal cell industry is large, rapidly expanding and growing more dependent on human fetal cell lines and aborted fetal tissue than ever before..."In my estimation there is no way any objective Catholic can read this information and continue to maintain the "remote mediate co-operation" argument, which it completely destroys.
Tradical: See above.Athanasius,
Thank you for your response.
One thing I undertook during Lent, apart from avoiding blog postings and the like, was to commit to understanding the theological principles of Cooperation in Evil and Double Effect; how they are related, how they differ, when one is applicable and vice versa etc. I haven’t spent hours or days on this, but weeks, and I know – if my experience is anything to go by – Tradical must have done the same given his numerous posts on the subject.Therefore, it is rather telling and sad to read a comment like this: “… no need to go into distracting discussions about agents …”; you seem to not care for the principle and its subtleties. I’m reminded of a point made by Father Rickaby (Moral Philosophy):
“In a nice point of law and intricate procedure, the lawyer is aware that scarcely more than the thickness of the paper on which he writes lies between the case going for his client or for the opposite party. To rail at these fine technicalities argues a lay mind, unprofessional and undiscerning. Hair-splitting, so far as it is a term of real reproach, means splitting the wrong hairs. The expert in any profession knows what things to divide and distinguish finely, and what things to take in the gross. But there are lines of division exceeding fine and nice in natural morality no less than in positive law. The student must not take scandal at the fine lines and subtle distinctions that we shall be obliged to draw in marking off lawful from unlawful action touching human life.”
In my response I mentioned the importance of understanding the theological principles employed. Indeed, I ended with a warning from Rev. Mangan that appears in the opening paragraph of his ‘An Historical Analysis of the Principle of Double Effect’: “It is a subtle principle, and for this reason it is liable to misuse on the part of the untrained mind. Even moralists need to proceed cautiously in its practical application. Frequently, in making applications to identical cases, moralists arrive at opposite conclusions.”
Rev. Mangan’s observation ought to make one proceed with caution. I did find another online article written by you (‘Warning: SSPX Shock Approval For Covid-19 Vaccine – Catholics Beware…’) and in this I see your Double Effect argument, which is attributed to a “trustworthy Traditional Catholic priest of more than 35 years”. However, as you now know, his reasoning is flawed since the principle of Double Effect operates on a single agent, whereas, in the current situation there are are two independent agents. And it is obvious that if a person does not receive the vaccine the pharmaceutical company will continue to produce the vaccine, hence Double Effect does not apply.
If one looks at the SSPX article there is no mention of Double Effect. Neither is there any mention in the Pontifical Academy’s 2005 study (apart from acknowledging the four Double Effect conditions also apply to the “indirect voluntary” action). Nor does the FSSP mention it but rather, on the vaccine, states “moral theology teaches that remote material cooperation in evil … could be justified if …”. A similar response from the ICK, Roberto de Marre, even those on the other side of the argument such as Don Pietro and Bp. Schneider, none are appealing to this principle because they all know that the principle doesn’t apply. And I note that your response to me (at the Remnant) also omits any attempt to justify your Double Effect argument. I think this amounts to a surrender of your case so far as it rests on the principle of Double Effect.Peter,
I have been forced to respond to your comment in two posts due to the very annoying "characters" limit on this blog. Please read them together as one complete comment.
Had you read the article I linked in my last comment then I doubt very much that you would be quoting Father Rickaby in the matter of "hair-splitting".
The pharmaceutical industry has deliberately promulgated and perpetuated the lie that only one, perhaps two, abortions took place many decades ago in order to facilitate vaccine R&D. It is upon this fundamental untruth that both the Vatican and the SSPX have deliberated and reached a moral judgment in respect to remote material cooperation with evil.
The truth having now come out, however, i.e., that in fact hundreds, if not thousands, of abortions have been carried out in the interests of vaccine research, production and testing, it is clear that the Vatican/SSPX advice is seriously flawed and that those who take these vaccines with full knowledge, even in supposed grave necessity, would be guilty of more than mere remote material cooperation in an evil which has been current and ongoing over many decades up to our time. Without these countless and continuing abortions the vaccines simply would not exist.
Besides that, there are other moral considerations (and rules) laid out in the Vatican's documents treating of this subject which are overlooked by those advising in favour of restricted use of the vaccines. The following article explains this very well:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-doc-confirms-its-mortally-sinful-to-take-or-facilitate-covid-vaccine-priest
And here, again, is the aforementioned article I linked earlier.
https://avoicefortruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/White-Paper-Abortion-Human-Fetal-Cell-Industry-Vaccines.pdf
I would very much appreciate your thoughts on both articles, if only to confirm that you are actually reading them.
In order to keep this as simple as possible I will exclude further debate on the principle of the double effect, which certainly remains intrinsic to the question but is perhaps causing distraction from the main principle cited by the Vatican/SSPX - that of remote cooperation in evil.
If we fix our attention on that latter principle, now shown in this case to have been misapplied on the bases of a lie perpetrated by the pharmaceutical industry, then I think we may all reach the objective conclusion that the aforementioned SSPX advice should be retracted. Indeed, I have written to Menzingen asking the SSPX superiors to consider this with some urgency.In conclusion, if we compare the conciliar documents and post-conciliar papal Encyclicals, exhortations, etc., with pre-Vatican II teaching, the one thing that stands out above all is the length the former go to in sophistry in order to justify non-Catholic innovations.
In pre-Vatican II teaching the message is presented clearly and concisely and always chimes with that sensus fidei which God, by His grace, has instilled in the souls of all Catholics of good will. Hence the truths of our faith, whether theological or moral, are presented in a such way that even the most simply educated can grasp them.
Vatican II changed that by introducing intellectual arguments way beyond the understanding of many faithful in order to obscure the truth for their own purposes.
This wicked sophistry, as we have since witnessed, has led to confusion, confliction, division, heresies and apostasy - all signs of the devil having entered by the back door, or "through some fissure in the walls of the Church", to quote Paul VI. Unity in the faith and in its simple truths is now lost.
This is precisely what we now see arising from this Vatican/SSPX advice, which is likewise convoluted and sophistic in its presentation to the faithful.
Consequently, as one would expect when the devil is influencing proceedings, confusion, conflict and division has arisen among Traditional priests and faithful , all signs that Our Lord is not the author of this advice.
Unity in faith is one of the four signs of the true religion. Consequently, any teaching that introduces confusion and division is not of God. This is why many Traditional Catholics recognised immediately the consistency in teaching expressed by the traditional prelates, such as Bishop Schneider, while balking in conscience at the Vatican/SSPX alternative teaching.
It is the greatest tragedy that you and I, and many others, now find ourselves in opposite camps, debating endlessly in matters we are not qualified to address, as a result of moral compromise being suggested by religious authorities who clearly did not sufficiently investigate the history of abortion in the pharmaceutical industry prior to their deliberations and conclusions.
As this discussion has moved I’ll answer here.
ReplyDeleteAthanasius,
Thank you for your response. I think I have fallen foul of the characters limit too.
The principles of principles Double Effect (PDE) and Cooperation in Evil (PCE) are not contradictory, but they are mutually exclusive; only one applies to any given case. After giving it some thought it ought to become obvious that which principle to apply is determined not by what they have in common – they both use the same four conditions, they are both concerned with a good effect and a bad effect – but what differentiates them, namely, the agents that cause the two effects. Once this is understood determining which principle applies can be boiled down to a simple “If the agent doesn’t act does/would the evil still occur?” If the answer in no then PDE applies otherwise it’s PCE.
Your response is disappointing. You haven’t considered i) the theological principles employed; ii) the argument that your opponent is advancing; iii) the arguments of your “Traditional prelates”, briefly, if you’re advancing something they’re not it means either you’re an eminent theologian and spotted something they’ve missed or you’re made a mistake. It should at least make you rethink; iv) the warnings of Rev. Mangan and the intricacies of Fr. Rickaby, which you clearly have no time for, it is also clear you have fallen foul of both; v) reviewing the evidence presented and retracting your assertion.
That last point (v) isn’t mine but yours. On the one hand you expect Rome and the SSPX to review and retract on the basis of new “evidence” you’ve provided, yet there’s a stubborn refusal on your part to do the same and acknowledge your error on PDE. This tells me that you’re not interested in a rational discourse in moral theology, rather your refusal to admit to error reveals a preference for political polemics, which only confirms a suspicion I’ve had with ‘your side’ for a while (possibly a subject for another thread, but I think abortion is being used as an excuse rather than a reason).
So, there’s a desire to shift the discussion to PCE. But, alas, here too you have failed to fully understand the principle. Your first mistake is where you claim “For material cooperation to be licit, four conditions are required”, when, strictly speaking, they are the four conditions for verifying PCE. A hair-splitting point, you may think, but may be I can do justice to Fr. Rickaby’s assertion in expounding on this:
With material cooperation two of the conditions need not be considered since they are assured by the fact that cooperation is material - a point made by McHugh & Callan (1515. Moral Theology). But because you don’t understand this you attempt to rebut all four conditions. In other words, you are not merely denying the claim of material cooperation, but, rather, in addition, claim there is a formal cooperation in this evil. Now, this goes far beyond that which Bp. Schneider et al wrote in their letter; you claim that anyone seeking vaccination both desires the primary agent’s bad effect and is the cause of this bad effect. So you’re now stuck between a rock and a hard place since you must either admit to not understanding yet another theological principle that you’re attempting to refute or you are putting yourself at odds with Bp. Schneider and the rest of your “traditional prelates” in declaring that their objection doesn’t go far enough!
Part II
DeleteYour next error concerns the act of the cooperator being either good or indifferent. You erroneously think taking the vaccine is neither because you only think in terms of the physical act (or object). Consider an act of violence against a person. If you only think in terms of the physical act you would only see it as bad, but the moral act could be good (in self defense) or bad (in robbery). The same point is made by Prümmer “… you must see the purpose of the action or moral object, which is to what the action is directed by its own nature, … a moral not a physical object because the same physical act done by different people can have different moral objects." (Manuale Theologiae Moralis II). McHugh & Callan say “… according to its nature, an act of cooperation is intrinsically evil, if it has no uses except such as are evil; it is indifferent, if, according to the intention of those who use it, it is now good …” (1517 a. Moral Theology: A Complete Course …). Jone says “The action itself must be good or at least morally indifferent.” (14 a. Moral Theology). In his handbook Prümmer describes how to determine the morality of the act, “In practice it is possible to decide whether an act is good in itself or indifferent by asking whether the agent has the right (absolutely speaking) to perform such an act. For example, an innkeeper has the right (absolutely speaking) to offer wine for sale; consequently this act is good or at least indifferent even though it happens to be connected with the sin of drunkenness;” (p.14, Handbook of Theology, 1949). Similarly, a person has a right (absolutely speaking) to seek inoculation against disease even though there happens to be, for certain diseases, tainted vaccines. Clearly the moral act – which is what the first condition refers to – of taking a vaccine is good (or at least indifferent).
Your response to the fourth condition demonstrates a complete lack of understanding. All you’ve done is express the third condition (your b.) as an answer, but what does that even mean? [I note that your b. & c. reverse the order found in most moral theology manuals, only in McHugh & Callan, so far, have I found your order.] It’s not even evaluated and it hints of someone unsure of how to respond. But to answer both points, to your “b.” response one simply has to ask the question “If the agent (me) does not act (get vaccinated) will the evil (the tainted vaccine) still occur?” The answer is obviously yes, therefore one cannot be the cause of the evil. See the importance of understanding the agent (another nod to Fr. Rickaby)?
The purpose of this fourth condition is to verify the principle of proportionality. For example, consider nurses at a hospital that also performs abortions. A nurse who is responsible for admissions doesn’t need a reason as strong as the one needed by a nurse who cares for a patient following an abortion, who, herself, doesn’t need a reason as strong as a nurse who cares for a patient prior to the abortion; the point being the closer one is to the evil the stronger the reason justifying cooperation must be.
Or to put it another way, as McHugh & Callan express, “A very grave reason for cooperation is the gain or retention of a very great good or the avoidance of a very great evil. A notable percentage of the goods of one's station in life should be considered as a very great good. A severe and long-continued illness, unemployment on the part of the bread-earner of a needy family, serious detriment to one's honor, reputation or peace of mind, etc., are examples of very great evils.” (1520 b. Moral Theology). In fact, the best objection in response to this condition is given by your “Fr. Elias” article, but you didn’t realize it (I offer this as an example of what needs to be done, not that it succeeds), because, just as with Double Effect, you don’t understand the principle.
Part III
DeleteI think I’ve amply demonstrated that you have failed in understanding principles of PDE and PCE and in their application as regards to the COVID vaccines – wherever I’ve written “you” I realize that it may not be you personally but possibly your priest friend who you are quoting/paraphrasing (or even ‘your side’). The fact that your “Traditional prelates” don’t reference PDE and reject that PCE applies tells you something. They know the Rome/SSPX theology stands up to scrutiny and so their only course of action is to dismiss it. Instead they have to resort to inventing a new theological principle: The Principle of Concatenation, which, obviously, doesn’t appear in any moral theology manuals. But as Prof. de Mattei notes, “The logic of this contention is only apparent because, through a paralogism, it establishes a concatenation of cause and effect, which exists at a historic level, but does not exist at a moral level, by virtue of which every act must be judged on its direct and immediate consequences, not on its historic links, even if they are close.” (p. 32, On the moral licitly of vaccination).
You write “you and I, and many others, now find ourselves in opposite camps, debating endlessly in matters we are not qualified to address”, this may be true but just look at the language your side employs: cannibalism, sophistry, looking for loopholes etc. No one, including your simple priest friend, can present their opinion as the Magisterium, it is all subject to the Church’s judgement, yet you declare what is “authentic Catholic moral teaching” and “non-authoritatively .. Modernist Rome”. You rail against anyone who accepts the SSPX/Rome’s position and while a proposition by the CDF is not infallible it should at least be considered the most probable. The Church has condemned whoever says it is not licit to follow a probable opinion or the most probable among those that are probable (see Roberto de Mattei). You say we have “diverged from … traditional and authentic moral teaching”, yet, as we’ve seen, it is your side who needs to invent a new theological principle. You refer to the signatories of Bp. Schneider’s letter as “traditional prelates” – inferring those who disagree are not traditional – even though a number of them accept Vatican II, celebrate the New Mass, allow altar girls, given communion in the hand etc.; it seems they’re “traditional” just because they just happen to agree with you (this is sophistry on your part). There’s a lot more that could be said about the language your side uses but I’ll leave it there.
One final point, you claim there’s nothing that can be done regarding our taxes funding abortion, that “our participation is extrinsic”. This is false. First, PCE can be formal, material, active, passive, immediate, mediate (proximate & remote). There is no such thing as “extrinsic participation”. Second, you can avoid paying the tax; you can emigrate to a country where abortion is still completely banned (Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua). You may balk at such a suggestion and the upheaval involved, yet you expect someone to give up their employment rather than take the vaccine and the endure the consequences, which could be loss of home, property, even marriage breakup etc. What you haven’t realized is that that you are benefiting from PCE yourself since “Material cooperation, in case of great necessity, is not sinful; for charity does not oblige under serious inconvenience to self…” (1514 b. McHugh & Callan), but something you wish to deny such an employee.