Why I am Wary of So Called 'Conservative' and Alternative News Sources - Part II (Wherein Tradical answers Murrax's questions)
+
JMJ
In part I (link), Murrax asked a couple of questions - the original can be seen at the link -but I have also mapped it out below.
Murrax, please chime in if I didn't catch the gist of the question.
So, my first thought is this seems to breakdown into a core question: Must Catholics obey civil laws?
This is something that I have wanted to dig into for sometime, but alas I don't have time to do a lot of research at this time - so I'll be going on my own reasoning and previous research.
Starting off with St. Thomas we have the following high level principles:
- Is the order within their sphere of authority? Yes / No
- Does the order involve immediate or proximate sin? Yes / No
This is pretty simple and the question that is usually asked is what defines the sphere of authority? I have been told that for Catholic religious leaders the sphere of authority is largely defined by the rule of the organization.
Here's what I found:
So the basic conditions are:
- Was it may be a person who had the authority?
- Was it for the common good?
- Was it based on reason and not just a whim?
- What is promulgated?
Items 3 and 4 seem to define the sphere of authority.
For 3 keep in mind, that this is 'based on reason' from the perspective of the person in authority, not that of the subjects.
So to answer Murrax's questions:
- If there was no widespread pandemic, but there were still contagious diseases like the flu which we could completely eliminate the spread of by using hazmat suits, must a Catholic still obey this order?
- Assuming that there is no national / regional outbreaks: If this is no general danger to the common-good, then it would seem that this law would lack foundation.
- If the state mandated that all Catholic masses always and at all times enforce the participants to wear masks, socially distance and limit the mass to a group of 10 people because the state deems this a good method to stop the spread of diseases that can be dangerous to vulnerable groups (The flu, the cold, etc), should Catholics always obey?
- As stated this is targeted as Catholic Masses specifically - so it would not be valid.
- If applied universally, assuming that the other conditions are met, meaning #3 there is a danger to the common-good that merits the measure, then it is a valid law.
Attached below is the map of my research over the past couple of weeks.
P^3
Thanks for your response. Again, your principles here seem to be solid and based on Catholic teaching. I find the part about if the lawgiver didn't intend to bind your conscience your conscience isn't bound very interesting, and that makes sense to me since it plays back into the Catholic understanding of how the Magisterium binds, and how it must intend to bind.
ReplyDeleteWe seem to *almost* completely agree on this, especially seeing how you answered my first question. I'm understanding more where you are coming from and where our disagreement is. I think the part where we disagree comes in with how you have answered my second question "if applied universally". We seem to agree that a disease like the Flu, which kills something like 50,000 people a year in a country like the USA does not represent a danger to the common good.
But where our disagreement is whether or not something like the Coronavirus which kills something like 500,000 in the USA per year represents a danger to the common good to justify a universally binding law that does cause a major inconvenience and potential obstruction to the salvation of souls and general health of the society.
I still say no, and I say no because:
It is not reasonable to apply a law universally when it only needs to be applied specifically.
Example: Instead of saying that we are required to socially distance and mask in specific places with vulnerable people, the law makes you mask and socially distance *everywhere*.
There is no justification for the extension of this law to the universal society and it does provide a harm to society, whether that be schools not being able to teach effectively or the amount of souls receiving the sacraments being restricted. This violates the principle of subsidiarity. Again, if this is not the case it goes back to my reductio ad absurdum argument for the questions: Why then can't the state simply say "People die from the flu->Hazmat suits protect from the flu->Therefore we should make a law that everyone should always wear a hazmat suit"? I think the principle of subsidiarity preventing the state from making a law universal that only needs to specific is the only thing that stops this obvious abuse of power.
Now a response you might have is that if a disease is so bad that it infects a huge chunk of the population and has a high lethality rate across the board you could have a universal law. Firstly, that's not Covid. Covid might in exceptional instances have major effects on young and healthy people, but in the vast majority of cases it does not. The majority of the deaths are older people with underlying conditions, others who die are major exceptions. Secondly, even if COVID was like the bubonic plague, I still don't think a hard lockdown could be applied universally, as the Church would have to be given means to administer the sacraments, and people who had recovered from this hypothetical disease shouldn't be required to adhere to the lockdown or restrictions, as that causes unnecessary damage to society. All comes back to subsidiarity applying the laws as specifically and locally as possible.
Again thanks for taking the time to make this and for running this incredibly helpful blog. I'll add your private intentions to my Rosary today! God bless
Tradical
ReplyDeleteYour thoughts on Canada mixing doses for the 2nd dose. Do you know if the Pharma companies have advised approval of the mixing of their product with others? Also have you talked about the use of mRNA and Double strand DNA gene therapy as a substitute for actual vaccines let alone mixing the two therapies? I only remember you talking about cells from aborted babies being okay morally. Curious. Thanks.
MM
Personally, I'm a little wary of mixing suppliers for the second dose. That said, I am more comfortable substituting a Pfizer or Moderna dose for an Altra-Zeneca because the goal is to induce an immune response.
Delete[Caveat Emptor: I have not done an indepth study of the mRNA vs DNA vs everything else vaccine issue]
RE: mRNA and Doublestrand DNA (not certain which one that is), if they induce an immune response - then they are vaccines. The methods differ but both mess with your body in different ways.
P^3
Hi Tradical
ReplyDeleteJust panning through Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Moderna and health.gov.on.ca documents. AstraZeneca and Moderna have not updated their warnings to NOT mix with other C19 vax's. health.gov.on.ca recommends it. All of the 3 warn of insufficient data for effect on pregnant women and women who breast feed. this conflicts with health.gov.on.ca, and I quote "1. Pregnancy Recommendation:
All pregnant individuals in the authorized age group are eligible and recommended
to be vaccinated as soon as possible, at any stage in pregnancy."
Benefits outweigh the risks they say
From the CDC:
CDC has received increased reports of myocarditis and pericarditis in adolescents and young adults after COVID-19 vaccination. The known and potential benefits of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the known and potential risks, including the possible risk of myocarditis or pericarditis. We continue to recommend COVID-19 vaccination for individuals 12 years of age and older. Like wow!
mRNA and Doublestrand DNA gene therapy do not contain Covid19. mRNA contain synthetic spike protein to enter into the cells of your body and produce the virus in you to create an immune response. A-Z DS DNA It is made from a weakened version of a common cold virus (known as an adenovirus) from chimpanzees. It has been modified to contain genetic material shared by the coronavirus - although it can't cause the illness.Once injected, it teaches the body's immune system how to fight the real virus.
You can say "if they induce an immune response - then they are vaccines." but technically they are not, they are Gene Therapy, they are different from real vaccines.
MM
Hi MM,
DeleteRe: health.gov.on.ca: Yep, I know a scientist who is concerned.
- I read (somewhere) that the mixing is for those who don't want to have the second Astra-Zeneca vaccine.
- Pregnant women / breast feeding etc: Yep I remember that - at the same time I know that pregnant / breast feeding women will eventually get the vaccine (knowingly or otherwise). So there will be data eventually. Personally, I wouldn't want any of my daughters who were pregnant to take the risk at this time.
re mRNA: I think that it would be good to define terms.
- A vaccine is an agent used to evoke and immune response without giving the person vaccinated the disease. So the goal of a vaccine is to create an immune response.
- The methods used to evoke an immune response differ depending on the vaccine.
- As A-Z is morally tainted, I would stand by the moral decision to receive either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.
- Looking at the vaccine safety rates for Canada ( https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccine-safety/ ) The Pfizer has 4.84 serious reactions and 16.10 per 100,000 doses, the Moderna has 3.36 & 40.03, and the AstraZeneca 10.70 & 24.87.
- I would be more concerned about the serious reactions so I rank the safety as Moderna, Pfizer and AstraZeneca. The risk of a serious adverse reaction for is (respectively) 0.00484%, 0.00336%, and 0.107%. A serious adverse reaction does not always mean death :-).
- The risk of death by infection with COVID-19 averages around 0.1% (IFR), the risk of serious disease is something that I haven't calculated - but the stat are available ... maybe later.
- There is an important distinction that I like to make, the mRNA vaccines use your cells to create the spike protein, this is expressed on the surface of the cell and your immune system realizes that it is foreign and builds a response. It doesn't use your cells to 'produce the virus'.
- real vaccines? In principle I don't agree with your last assertion. All of these 'vaccines' are 'real vaccines'. They use different methods. For me the question is whether they are morally tainted, safe and effective. In that order.
P^3