Making Moral Vaccine Decisions - Part L: St. Thomas Aquinas vs the alleged "Sensus Fidei"

 +

JMJ

 This is an excerpt from my addendum to Open Letter to Confused Traditional Catholics (link). The topic seemed appropriate to attach this series.

P^3

Introduction

 My open letter attracted a fair amount of attention (see original article here - link).  My motivation for writing it was, in part, due to the publication of the 'Open Letter by 12 Traditionalists' (see my critique here - link)  and in the other part my frustration with the bad decisions that I have seen being made across the blogosphere and by friends over the decades.

There are a few points that merit a bit deeper dive:

1. Sede-Vacantism
2. Our Duty of State
3. Setting aside St. Thomas due to a perceived 'sensus fidei'

...

St. Thomas Aquinas vs the alleged "Sensus Fidei"

Another case where I didn't bring my readers along was my assessment of the Twelve authors concerning St. Thomas:

Tradicat: One recent 'open letter' calls on Traditional Catholics (link) to follow the modern Catholics by setting aside the principles of St.Thomas Aquinas. Seriously, how can a Traditional Catholic write something like that and still think they're on the right path? 

In my review of their open letter I wrote:

If we were to follow their argument all Traditional Catholics should go back to their Novus Ordo Parishes because the vast majority of Catholic are NOT Traditional Catholic.  Setting aside this obvious error in reasoning (ie gaff) on the part of the authors, they are suggesting that we should abandon centuries on application of the principles of St. Thomas Aquinas because some people don't understand or agree with it? Truly the desire to pick and chose our beliefs and principles has infected even Traditional Catholics. (Tradicat: Open Letter Commentary link)

Here's the passage that I was challenging:

The citation of Thomas v. Aquinas used by P. Sélégny, Demalo, q. XIII, a. 4, ad17, raises serious questions: Is the thought process of the Doctor universal is actually pertinent here? The sensus fidei resists that Thomas should actually be an accomplice in the present tyranny of falsehood. (See Article Link)

Here's the passage to which the Twelve author objected:

In other words, is the one who benefits from a past sin committing a sin himself? The answer is given by St. Thomas Aquinas: “It is one thing to consent or concur with someone in wickedness, another thing to use the wickedness of someone for good; for he consents or concurs with another in wickedness to whom it is pleasing that that other person engage in wickedness, and perhaps induces him to it, and this is always a sin; but he uses another’s wickedness who turns this evil that someone does to some good, and in this way God uses the sins of men by eliciting from them some good; hence it is lawful too for a man to use the sin of another for good.” (De Malo, q. XIII, a. 4, ad 17. See also Summa Theologica, II-II, 78, 4). (FSSPX.News: Practical Considerations)

For complete context here are the Citations:

It is by no means lawful to induce a man to sin, yet it is lawful to make use of another's sin for a good end, since even God uses all sin for some good, since He draws some good from every evil as stated in the Enchiridion (xi). Hence when Publicola asked whether it were lawful to make use of an oath taken by a man swearing by false gods (which is a manifest sin, for he gives Divine honor to them) Augustine (Ep. xlvii) answered that he who uses, not for a bad but for a good purpose, the oath of a man that swears by false gods, is a party, not to his sin of swearing by demons, but to his good compact whereby he kept his word. If however he were to induce him to swear by false gods, he would sin. Accordingly we must also answer to the question in point that it is by no means lawful to induce a man to lend under a condition of usury: yet it is lawful to borrow for usury from a man who is ready to do so and is a usurer by profession; provided the borrower have a good end in view, such as the relief of his own or another's need. Thus too it is lawful for a man who has fallen among thieves to point out his property to them (which they sin in taking) in order to save his life, after the example of the ten men who said to Ismahel (Jeremiah 41:8): "Kill us not: for we have stores in the field."Summa Theologica, II-II, 78, 4

 It is one thing to consent with someone in wickedness; it is another thing to use the wickedness of someone for good. For one who approves that another practice wickedness, and who perhaps induces the other to do so, consents with the other in wickedness, and this is always a mortal sin. But one who turns the evil that another does to some good uses the wickedness of the other for good, and even God in this way uses the sins of human beings and brings some good out of the sins. And so also it is licit for human beings to use the sin of another for good. And when Publicola inquired whether it would be licit to use the oath of persons who swear by false gods, in which the persons evidently sin, Augustine gave the following reply. "One who uses the trustworthiness of those who have openly sworn by false gods, and does so for good, not for evil, does not associate himself or herself with their sin of swearing by devils but with their virtuous promise to tell the truth. But one who were to approve that another swear by false gods, and who were to induce the other to do so, would sin. We should likewise say regarding the matter under discussion that a person does not sin if the person borrows at interest and uses the wickedness of the lender for some good. But if one were to urge a lender who was not ready to lend at interest to do so, one would undoubtedly in every such case sin as consenting with the other sinning. De Malo, q. XIII, a. 4, ad 17 (Question 13, Article 4, Reply to Objections #17)

Here's how I break down the statement:

What is St. Thomas talking about in the two articles cited by Fr. Sélégny? One is from the Summa Theologica and the other from Quaestiones Disputatae de Malo.  As shown above, these articles deal with the question of whether or not we can benefit from another's evil act.  

The answer was: Yes you can and Fr. Sélégny has correctly applied the principles noted.

Is St. Thomas' thought pertinent? The dispute in question is whether or not it is licit to be immunized with a morally tainted vaccine.  The moral taint is derived from the murder of a child, obviously an evil act. Our act is that of being immunized, obviously an good act. 

The answer is: Yes, St. Thomas' thought is pertinent as it deals directly with the principles in question.

Are the Twelve authors correct in invoking the 'sensus fidei'? The 'sensus fidei' is a weird term to invoke as it generally means the Church as a whole accepts a truth of the Faith.  In this case, since there is no unanimity on this topic in the Church, it appears that they are simply referring to the feeling of people like themselves, other SSPX supporters, who disagree with the SSPX, Rome. 

The answer is: No, they are not correctly invoking the concept of 'sensus fidei'.

At this point, their argument seems to be that a lot of Traditional Catholics object to the use of morally tainted vaccines therefore there is a 'sensus fidei'.  I find this to be an argument by numbers: There's lots of us, so we're right.  As noted if this were the case, since Trads represent a miniscule number of Catholics, they should close up shop and return to their Modern Parishes.

What would St. Thomas Aquinas do? As Fr. Sélégny correctly cited St. Thomas and they are unable to bring themselves to accept the application of the principle leads me to the conclusion that they would rather believe that St. Thomas would side with them and not consent to being and 'accomplice'.  This is a great example of cognitive dissonance. They can't conceive of a reality where St. Thomas would agree with the reception of morally tainted vaccines, so they change their perception of the reality.

The answer is: St. Thomas would side with Rome and the SSPX because they have cited the principles correctly.

The fact that the Twelve cite incredulity at St. Thomas being "an accomplice in the present tyranny of falsehood" supports this perspective.  This is why I concluded that they will set aside the principles of St. Thomas as, objectively, they do not support their position.

 

Conclusion

It is obvious that there is a lot of confusion in the Church on both religious and secular matters. 

After decades of living in this state of confusion, based on my experience and reading, it seems that a lot of good people (Traditional and Modern Catholics alike) no longer recognize friend from foe. There is a strong tendency to hold on to what they believe to be the truth as opposed to what really is the truth even when given objective evidence.

It truly is a mess.

P^3

References

Standford - Principle of Double-Effect

SSPX: Is it Morally Permissable to be Vaccinated

SSPX: Practical Considerations