How vaccine companies obtain Embryonic Kidney Cells for cell-lines

[TradGranny]

One source who worked in a vaccine cell lab said the aborted babies were put in the refrigerator prior to being sold. However according to another biologist, the Embryonic Kidney Cells were extracted within 5 minutes of the abortion.
This is from Life Site News.

Pamela Acker is a biologist who left the vaccine lab where she worked and later authored Vaccination: A Catholic Perspective.

Acker dispels the myth that these cell lines are created using spontaneous abortions, simply by understanding that these cells have to be gathered within five minutes of the abortion. A miscarriage would simply not provide cells that were alive enough for researchers to be able to use the cells. 

This is where things get very disturbing, because in most cases it's not a "simple abortion," but rather, Acker says: 

    "They will actually deliver these babies via cesarean section. The babies are still alive when the researchers start extracting the tissue; to the point where their heart is still beating, and they're generally not given any anesthetic, because that would disrupt the cells that the researchers are trying to extract.

    So, they're removing this tissue, all the while the baby is alive and in extreme amounts of pain. So, this makes it even more sadistic."

While our discussion is broad, we do highlight the Moderna and Pfizer COVID vaccines specifically. The above is a small sample of the vital information Pamela Acker and I discussed today. I encourage each one of you to listen to the full interview, and share with your friends and family.
 
To see interview, go to:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/the-unborn-babies-used-for-vaccine-development-were-alive-at-tissue-extraction

[King Wenceslas]

Totally gross. How in the heck do they live with themselves? Monsters. Just new versions of Eickmann.

[TradGranny]

Totally gross. How in the heck do they live with themselves? Monsters. Just new versions of Eickmann.

I am struggling to understand how Catholics can know the facts and proceed with the product that was researched using this horrific baby-sacrifice process to obtain the needed HEK cells.

[Jayne]

Totally gross. How in the heck do they live with themselves? Monsters. Just new versions of Eickmann.

I am struggling to understand how Catholics can know the facts and proceed with the product that was researched using this horrific baby-sacrifice process to obtain the needed HEK cells.

Abortion derived cell lines have been a standard tool in scientific research and development for around half a century.  They are not only used for vaccines.  They have been involved in countless medicines and medical discoveries. It is probably not even possible to figure out all the ways.  The entire medical system is tainted.  If you really don't want to benefit indirectly from abortion, you should avoid all modern medicine.  While you're at it, stop using money because the entire financial system is tainted by the sin of usury.

In St. Paul's time, there were Christians who stopped eating meat because much, perhaps all, of the meat in the market had been obtained from sacrifices to idols.  They did not want to benefit from a system that was tainted by the sin of idolatry.  (St. Paul taught that this was unnecessary but that, on such a matter, Christians should respect each other's consciences.)

Sometimes, especially when systemic sins are involved, it is inevitable that we benefit from the sins of others. There is no Catholic principle that this is intrinsically wrong.  My Missal contains a list of  9 ways of being an accessory to another's sin:

By counsel.
By command.
By consent.
By provocation.
By praise or flattery.
By concealment.
By partaking.  [i.e. taking part in committing the sin]
By silence.
By defense of the ill done.

Note what is not there.  It does not say anything about benefiting from another's sin.  It would not make sense if it did make such a claim.  Sometimes it is even possible for it to be good to benefit from sin.  We face such situations because God brings good from evil.  Every member of this forum has benefited from the betrayal and crucifixion of Our Lord.  These are arguably the worst sins in the history of mankind and yet they were the means of salvation.

Of course, it is not always good.  Sometime, it is better to avoid benefiting from other's sins.   For example, I avoid buying items that have  been imported from China, largely because I do not want to support the evils of this regime.   If enough people did this this, it might even discourage trade with China.  But no matter how many people refuse the Covid vaccine, it will do nothing to end abortion.  No woman gets an abortion because she wants to supply cells for medical R&D.  She does it because she does not want her baby and she is surrounded by a society telling her that she has a right to kill it. 

I am as horrified and sickened by abortion as it is possible to be.  I have been prolife from my youth and even more so after experiencing pregnancy myself and being aware of the precious human life that I carried within me.  In spite of how strongly I feel, everything I know about moral theology leads me to conclude that the theologians who say it is permissible to use these vaccines are making the stronger arguments.  However, I follow the principle that St. Paul taught in connection to eating meat and so I respect the conscience of those who decide not to use vaccines developed using abortion-derived cell lines.

[Jayne]

Here is a Scientific American article that gives some idea of how pervasive the use of fetal material is in medical R&D: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-truth-about-fetal-tissue-research/

Note the distinction between established cell lines derived from abortion decades ago and fresh fetal material.  The latter is the reason why Planned Parenthood sells baby organs. 

[TradGranny]

In St. Paul's time, there were Christians who stopped eating meat because much, perhaps all, of the meat in the market had been obtained from sacrifices to idols.  They did not want to benefit from a system that was tainted by the sin of idolatry.  (St. Paul taught that this was unnecessary but that, on such a matter, Christians should respect each other's consciences.)

On what are you basing your notion that St. Paul said that?
He ACTUALLY said the opposite:

1 Cor 10:28
Douay-Rheims Bible
But if any man say: This has been sacrificed to idols, do not eat of it for his sake that told it, and for conscience' sake.

Translation: This vaccine involved human sacrifice. Do not partake of it.

In context, St. Paul makes his case even stronger.

[TradGranny]

Totally gross. How in the heck do they live with themselves? Monsters. Just new versions of Eickmann.

I am struggling to understand how Catholics can know the facts and proceed with the product that was researched using this horrific baby-sacrifice process to obtain the needed HEK cells.

Abortion derived cell lines have been a standard tool in scientific research and development for around half a century.  They are not only used for vaccines.  They have been involved in countless medicines and medical discoveries. It is probably not even possible to figure out all the ways.  The entire medical system is tainted.  If you really don't want to benefit indirectly from abortion, you should avoid all modern medicine.  While you're at it, stop using money because the entire financial system is tainted by the sin of usury.

In St. Paul's time, there were Christians who stopped eating meat because much, perhaps all, of the meat in the market had been obtained from sacrifices to idols.  They did not want to benefit from a system that was tainted by the sin of idolatry.  (St. Paul taught that this was unnecessary but that, on such a matter, Christians should respect each other's consciences.)

Sometimes, especially when systemic sins are involved, it is inevitable that we benefit from the sins of others. There is no Catholic principle that this is intrinsically wrong.  My Missal contains a list of  9 ways of being an accessory to another's sin:

By counsel.
By command.
By consent.
By provocation.
By praise or flattery.
By concealment.
By partaking.  [i.e. taking part in committing the sin]
By silence.
By defense of the ill done.

Note what is not there.  It does not say anything about benefiting from another's sin.  It would not make sense if it did make such a claim.  Sometimes it is even possible for it to be good to benefit from sin.  We face such situations because God brings good from evil.  Every member of this forum has benefited from the betrayal and crucifixion of Our Lord.  These are arguably the worst sins in the history of mankind and yet they were the means of salvation.

Of course, it is not always good.  Sometime, it is better to avoid benefiting from other's sins.   For example, I avoid buying items that have  been imported from China, largely because I do not want to support the evils of this regime.   If enough people did this this, it might even discourage trade with China.  But no matter how many people refuse the Covid vaccine, it will do nothing to end abortion.  No woman gets an abortion because she wants to supply cells for medical R&D.  She does it because she does not want her baby and she is surrounded by a society telling her that she has a right to kill it. 

I am as horrified and sickened by abortion as it is possible to be.  I have been prolife from my youth and even more so after experiencing pregnancy myself and being aware of the precious human life that I carried within me.  In spite of how strongly I feel, everything I know about moral theology leads me to conclude that the theologians who say it is permissible to use these vaccines are making the stronger arguments.  However, I follow the principle that St. Paul taught in connection to eating meat and so I respect the conscience of those who decide not to use vaccines developed using abortion-derived cell lines.

Those of us in pro-life, at least here, have long been well-aware of the moral problem of the use of fetal cell-lines. Here is Father Phil Wolfe on The Morality of using Vaccines Derived from Fetal Tissue Cultures, written long before Sars2.


The first consideration is to assess the moral object of the act. What is the moral object of a vaccination? Let's use a specific example to illustrate: an immunization against Measles, Mumps and Rubella using the MMR II vaccine. Since the moral object of any act is the exterior act as proposed by reason, in this case, the moral object of the act of immunizing a child with MMR II is to give him an inoculation with this vaccine so as to induce an immune response, so that he will be immune to measles, mumps and rubella. This, in itself, is a good moral object.

The circumstances which surround the MMR II vaccination must now be considered. The circumstances are those things that "stand around" an act, and qualify it in some manner. There are 7 circumstances: who, what, where, by what aid, why, how and when. (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo,q. 2, a. 6.) If all the attending circumstances are good, or indifferent, then that act is good; that act arises from an integral cause. If one or more of the attending circumstances are evil, then there is a defect, and the act itself is evil.

For this particular act, that of immunizing a child with MMR II, the circumstance which deserves close scrutiny is "by what aid." "By what aid" refers to the instrumental cause, or agent of the act, in this case the MMR II vaccine, a product produced using fetal tissue, obtained from an aborted baby, as a culture medium.

At this point a feeling of extreme unease might overcome the Catholic who is attempting to assess the morality of this procedure. He recognizes that the moral object of the act is good, to immunize a child against these diseases, and he recognizes that if all the attending circumstances were good, he could safely conclude that this act would be good. But now he reaches the uneasy notion that this vaccine is tainted in some fashion, since it was produced using fetal tissue. May he then use it, since he is not directly approving of the abortion which made production of this vaccine possible? He wonders, does this circumstance "by what aid" pertain here? Can he disclaim the origin of this vaccine, as some have argued, on the basis that his use would only be a remote material cooperation with the intrinsic evil of the direct abortion and use of the aborted baby's tissue?

In order to answer these questions, he should pay thoughtful attention to the rules for restitution for a possessor in bad faith, which is to say, that he should study the "rules for returning things that he knows don't belong to him."

Now, in order that a Catholic get a reasonably solid grasp on the rules for restitution for a possessor in bad faith, a few illustrations will first be offered; and then the rules will be applied to the situation at hand.

Imagine a man steals his neighbor's lawnmower. He knows full well that he has no right to this thing. This man is in bad faith. So possession in bad faith means that the man who has the goods in bad faith knows full well that they are not rightfully his.

Now, suppose that the thief sells this lawnmower to another man for a very good price, and tells him that the price is so cheap because the lawnmower is stolen. Is the man who just bought this lawnmower, knowing full well it was stolen in good faith? No, he's also an example of possession in bad faith. Now, supposing, in either of these cases, the man who has unjust possession of this lawnmower repents: what does he have to do?

There's one basic rule: A man in bad faith has to make restitution for ALL the foreseeable damage caused to the lawful owner. It's easy to understand; he's responsible for the damage, so he has to fix it.

Now what does that mean, in these cases?

1) He has to return the thing itself, if it still exists: in this case, a stolen lawnmower.
2) If it no longer exists, he has to restore the equivalent value. So, even if he doesn't have the lawnmower anymore, he still owes the poor man he stole it from either the equivalent value in money or an equivalent lawnmower.

Now, suppose a little more complicated situation: Suppose that the original owner of the lawnmower used it for business. And now he is sitting around without his equipment, unable to work, since his mower was stolen. And suppose, again, that the thief repents. What does the thief have to do for restitution?

1) The thief still has to return the thing itself, if it still exists: in this case, a stolen lawnmower.
2) If it no longer exists, he has to restore the equivalent value.

Now, he has another responsibility, since a man in bad faith has to make good for all the foreseeable damage caused to the lawful owner. And that is the third point:

3) He has to restore the profit which the owner would have made, or reimburse him for the loss he suffered, in this case, the money lost from being unable to work has to be restored to the owner.

Now suppose a even more complicated situation: suppose the thief put some work into the lawnmower; suppose that he did 3 things: he painted it, not because it needed paint but to make sure he didn't get caught with a stolen lawnmower. Then, he had it tuned up since it was running a little rough, and this tune-up was definitely very useful. Then, since the blade was so dinged up it hardly cut, he put a new blade on the mower. And after putting all this into this stolen lawnmower, he repented. What does he have to do now?

1) The thief still has to return the thing itself, if it still exists: the stolen lawnmower.
2) If it no longer exists, he has to restore the equivalent value.
3) He still has to restore the profit which the owner would have made, or reimburse him for the loss he suffered, in this case, the money lost from being unable to work has to be restored to the owner.
4) But this time, he can deduct any useful or necessary expenses , a useful expense improves the item; a necessary expense preserves it. For example, the tune-up was a useful expense; the new blade was a necessary expense. But the paint wasn't either useful or necessary but only done for the sake of camouflage, so he can't deduct that expense.

Now, suppose an entirely different situation: Imagine a rustler who steals about 20 head of cows., and then, 2 years later, he repents. What is he responsible for?

1) A thief has to return the thing itself, if it still exists: in this case, 20 head of cows, not bulls, not steers.
2) If it no longer exists, he has to restore the equivalent value. So, if he sold some of the cows, he has to replace that same number.
3) He has to restore the profit which the owner would have made, or reimburse him for the loss he suffered, in this case, the money lost from not having those two years of a calf-crop.
4) He can deduct any useful or necessary expenses, a useful expense improves the item; a necessary expense preserves it. For example, veterinary bills and pasturage.

Here's the new addition:

5) He has to restore all the natural products of the property. Lawnmowers don't have natural products. But cows do. What are natural products? Something produced naturally, by the very nature of the creature. In the case of cattle, the natural products of beef cows are calves. Milk cows, milk and calves. For an apple tree, it's apples; for a peach tree, it's the peaches; for a hay field, the hay, and so forth. So this rustler has to return any calves, heifers, steers or bulls born out of those 20 head since he stole them. He can't keep them. He can't build up a herd on stolen cattle. They have to go back; they belong to the original owner. He can't profit on his rustling.

Now how does all this apply to the situation with the MMR II vaccine? If a man in bad faith has to restore all the natural products of the property he has unjust possession of, how can the pharmaceutical companies possibly justify their possession of the natural product of a little baby, the tissue used to culture the vaccine; the same tissue which was, in an act of supreme injustice, carved out of the flesh of a baby? It is crystal clear that all those involved are in bad faith, and that restitution must be made; that these tissues not only not be utilized in any sort of experimentation or production at all, but that they be allowed to die. There are no provisos in the rules for restitution which could excuse a possessor in bad faith from returning his ill-gotten goods, on the condition that he could do all kinds of interesting research with his contraband. These people are in bad faith, and they are in unjust possession of someone else's tissues without any right.

But, you say, what if the mother agreed to donate the tissue from her aborted child for research? The parents have no right to donate their aborted child for medical research. Bodily rights ultimately belong to God and when He creates us He gives us conditional rights over our bodies. Through natural death, God cedes the right over the body to the next of kin (or state if there is no next of kin). When someone is murdered, they violate not only the person's conditional rights over their body, but they also usurp God's rights by killing that person. God's rights are usurped because it is ultimately God's body to give to whom He pleases. Through natural death it is clear that God is giving the body to someone else because He has taken it from the person who had it.

So in abortion, the parents have usurped rights over the child's body which is not theirs because God did not cede the rights to them; they illicitly took them. Therefore, the parents of an aborted child or the person who murders can not use the body of the person they killed. With abortion and murder, the only way that justice is served is that the body must be buried. This in a sense gives the body back to God and it respects the right of the individual by not doing anything with the body since the person's will regarding their body can not be ascertained.

The notion of possession in bad faith, when applied to fetal tissue culture, is only an analogical usage. Why? Because unlike the situation wherein a rustler could actually purchase the cattle he had stolen, and thus come into legitimate possession of that previously stolen livestock, no power on Earth can give anyone the right to possess, purchase or preserve tissue taken from a sacrificed baby. Human tissue obtained in such a manner is not an object of possession, and can never be an object of possession, regardless if they are producing vaccines for every disease on Earth. The evil use of fetal tissue for someone's good cannot justify the situation: it is a screaming violation of justice. In this case, the circumstance of "by what aid" is evil, and therefore the whole act of immunizing a child with the MMR II vaccine, as originally considered, is evil: Bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque defectu (Goodness arises from an integral cause, evil arises from any defect whatsoever).

It is immoral to knowingly use any medical products, vaccines, monoclonal antibodies, stem cells, you name it, which are derived from tissue obtained via abortion or embryonic destruction.

Appendix: The rules for the duty of restitution.

A man may be possessed of the property of another without a just title either through an act of injustice, e.g., fraud, theft, usury, etc., or in good faith, e.g., by purchase, donation, or legacy. In the former case there is a culpa theologica, i.e., a formal violation of strict justice (iustitia commutativa), in the latter there is merely a material injustice. These two forms of unjust possession determine the manner in which restitution must be made.

The general rules for determining the duty of restitution are the following:

a) Res clamat domino, i.e., the rightful owner is entitled to his property, no matter into whose hands it may have fallen. This rule follows necessarily from the nature of property and ownership. In applying it, however, due regard must be paid to prescription, etc.

b) Res fructificat domino, i.e., the rightful owner is entitled to the fruits of his property, provided, of course, he has not ceded this right to others.

c) Res naturaliter perit domino, i.e., the right of ownership is bound up with the object owned and ceases with that object. If the object has perished, but its value continues, the original owner is entitled to the latter, as e.g., when a ton of wheat has been sold and the sum received is still in the hands of the seller. If a thing has perished not from natural causes, but through the fault of the possessor, the owner is entitled to restitution.

d) Nemo ex re aliena locupletari potest, i.e., no one has a right to enrich himself with the property of another, for the fruits of that property do not belong to the unlawful possessor but to the rightful owner.

If the possessor can not reach the owner, he must make restitution to the heirs.

The fruits of a thing (fructus rei) may be:

1) Fructus naturales, natural, i.e., derived from the thing itself (beneficio naturae) without the co-operation of man, or with but slight co-operation on his part, for example, fruits of trees, wood in a forest, grass on a meadow, milk, wool, etc.;

2) Fructus industriales, i.e., fruits of human industry or toil, such as the profits from a sale or purchase, etc.;

3) Fructus mixti, which are partly the result of industry (ex industria) and partly of the natural or artificial fertility of the property (ex re ipsa), for instance, grain, wine, etc.;

4) Fructus civiles, which are derived from an object by means of the civil law, e.g., rent, salary, etc. The latter category may be reduced to the first (fructus naturales).

I. One may be in possession of the property of another either in bad faith or in good faith. A possessor malae fidei is one who knows, or has good reason for believing, that the property he holds belongs to another. Such a one is bound to restore to the rightful owner whatever the latter has been unjustly deprived of, that is to say:

a) The stolen property itself, for res clamat domino. If the property no longer exists, its value must be restored. If it has deteriorated in value whilst under the control of the unlawful possessor, restitution must be made of the value it had when it was taken from its rightful owner. If its value has increased, it must be restored as it is, with all its fruits, for, res fructificat domino. If the stolen property fluctuated in value after the theft, the owner's loss bust be made good, and if he intended to sell it when at its highest value, that value must be restored to him.

b) All the fruits of the property, natural, industrial, and mixed, must be restored to its owner. But any necessary or useful expensed incurred by the legitimate possessor for the preservation or improvement of the property, as well as such fruits as may be the result of special efforts on his part, may be deducted.

c) The damage suffered by the owner in consequence of being deprived of what belonged to him (damnum emergens) as well as any profits he may have lost (lucrum cessans), must also be restored to him.

(From A Handbook of Moral Theology by the Reverend Antony Koch, D.D., adapted and edited by Arthur Preuss. Volume V. Man's Duties to His Fellowmen. B. Herder Book Company. St Louis, MO. 1933 pp. 379-383.)

[Jayne]

In St. Paul's time, there were Christians who stopped eating meat because much, perhaps all, of the meat in the market had been obtained from sacrifices to idols.  They did not want to benefit from a system that was tainted by the sin of idolatry.  (St. Paul taught that this was unnecessary but that, on such a matter, Christians should respect each other's consciences.)

On what are you basing your notion that St. Paul said that?
He ACTUALLY said the opposite:

1 Cor 10:28
Douay-Rheims Bible
But if any man say: This has been sacrificed to idols, do not eat of it for his sake that told it, and for conscience' sake.

Translation: This vaccine involved human sacrifice. Do not partake of it.

In context, St. Paul makes his case even stronger.

You do not seem to have understood the context.  Here is I Cor 10:23-29:

[23] All things are lawful for me, but all things do not edify. [24] Let no man seek his own, but that which is another's. [25] Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, eat; asking no question for conscience' sake.

[26] The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof. [27] If any of them that believe not, invite you, and you will be willing to go; eat of any thing that is set before you, asking no question for conscience' sake. [28] But if any man say: This has been sacrificed to idols, do not eat of it for his sake that told it, and for conscience' sake. [29] Conscience, I say, not thy own, but the other's

The word "shambles" is an archaic term that means meat market.  St. Paul says it is lawful to any meat sold in the market and not to ask any questions about its origin, whether or not it had been involved in a sacrifice.  Similarly, if one is eating with unbelievers (who likely are using meat that has been sacrificed), accept any meat they offer you, without asking questions.  Only if somebody offers meat while giving the information that it has been sacrificed should one not eat it, because in that situation it is likely to cause scandal.

Applied to the vaccine situation it would be like somebody saying: "Here is your Covid vaccine.  It was developed using an abortion derived cell line.  If you take it that means you approve of abortion."   In this situation, following the principle laid out by St. Paul, we should refuse the vaccine.

Another passage referring to this issue Rom 14:1-3

[1] Now him that is weak in faith, take unto you: not in disputes about thoughts. [2] For one believeth that he may eat all things: but he that is weak, let him eat herbs. [3] Let not him that eateth, despise him that eateth not: and he that eateth not, let him not judge him that eateth. For God hath taken him to him.

The person who is weak in faith (in this context, scrupulous) thinks he should not eat meat and that is fine.  If that is where his conscience leads, he can eat  vegetables ("herbs" in the D-R) instead. The one who believes he may eat meat, however, has the better understanding of the faith.  Nevertheless, neither should judge the other.

And there is a passage in ICor 8:7-10:

[7] But there is not knowledge in every one. For some until this present, with conscience of the idol: eat as a thing sacrificed to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. [8] But meat doth not commend us to God. For neither, if we eat, shall we have the more; nor, if we eat not, shall we have the less. [9] But take heed lest perhaps this your liberty become a stumblingblock to the weak. [10] For if a man see him that hath knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not his conscience, being weak, be emboldened to eat those things which are sacrificed to idols?

Not everyone has the knowledge that eating meat is permissible.  Some people experience eating meat as if they were participating in idol worship and are defiled by it.   Even though we are at liberty to eat meat, we need to consider the affect this has on others and avoid leading those who would be defiled by it to follow our example.

[TradGranny]

My condolences to you Jayne. You are a smart lady, but you are not making sense anymore. Go back and read Paul again. Nothing in the larger context changes what he said.

You are affirming what I've repeatedly said: the uninformed are not culpable. At the time you and others made your decision you did not have all the facts.

You will be in my prayers.

[Prayerful]

The hair sniffer's regime legalised any prohibitions on using dead babies as spare part bins.

[Jayne]

My condolences to you Jayne. You are a smart lady, but you are not making sense anymore. Go back and read Paul again. Nothing in the larger context changes what he said.

Here is the Haydock Commentary on the same passage:

Eat of any thing, &c. Here at length St. Paul prescribes them a rule by which they were to govern themselves, as to meats that they met with. Buy and eat any thing sold in the market, or of any thing that you meet with at the table of infidels, when they invite you, for all are the Lord's creatures, and may be taken with thanksgiving, as we ought to take whatsoever we eat. --- But if any man say, this hath been sacrificed to idols, do not eat of it for his sake, &c. And why must they not then eat of it? because either he is an infidel that says it: and then by saying so, he may mean that they who eat it, ought to eat it in honour of their gods. Or if a weak brother says so, he thereby signifies, that his conscience judges it not lawful to be eaten; so that in one case, you seem to consent that things are to be taken in honour of idols: in the other, you give offence to your weak brother: and I would have you to be without offence, both to Jews and Gentiles; and not to think it enough that you can eat such things with thanksgiving.

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/haydock/1_corinthians/10.htm

I understood this passage in the way that it has traditionally been understood by Catholics.  You are mistaken in its meaning.

[diaduit]

My condolences to you Jayne. You are a smart lady, but you are not making sense anymore. Go back and read Paul again. Nothing in the larger context changes what he said.

Here is the Haydock Commentary on the same passage:

Eat of any thing, &c. Here at length St. Paul prescribes them a rule by which they were to govern themselves, as to meats that they met with. Buy and eat any thing sold in the market, or of any thing that you meet with at the table of infidels, when they invite you, for all are the Lord's creatures, and may be taken with thanksgiving, as we ought to take whatsoever we eat. --- But if any man say, this hath been sacrificed to idols, do not eat of it for his sake, &c. And why must they not then eat of it? because either he is an infidel that says it: and then by saying so, he may mean that they who eat it, ought to eat it in honour of their gods. Or if a weak brother says so, he thereby signifies, that his conscience judges it not lawful to be eaten; so that in one case, you seem to consent that things are to be taken in honour of idols: in the other, you give offence to your weak brother: and I would have you to be without offence, both to Jews and Gentiles; and not to think it enough that you can eat such things with thanksgiving.

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/haydock/1_corinthians/10.htm

I understood this passage in the way that it has traditionally been understood by Catholics.  You are mistaken in its meaning.

This passage is very appropriate for me, consent to a vaccine is honouring evil by creating the demand in the first place and especially when you reward the evil doers financially and also you are giving bad example to those who are weaker in the faith than you.  The passage actually to me, differentiates between eating with infidels when invited in good faith and knowingly eating with infidels who ask you to partake of a meal that was offered to idols....

[Jayne]

This passage is very appropriate for me, consent to a vaccine is honouring evil by creating the demand in the first place and especially when you reward the evil doers financially and also you are giving bad example to those who are weaker in the faith than you.  The passage actually to me, differentiates between eating with infidels when invited in good faith and knowingly eating with infidels who ask you to partake of a meal that was offered to idols....

I respect your decision not to take the vaccine.

As I have been thinking about this and the other Scripture passages I cited, I have been reflecting on what I have been posting about the morality of vaccines.  I having been trying encourage my readers to respect other people's decisions because there genuinely is room for disagreement about the right course of action.  But I do not want to argue with those who have come to a conclusion that they cannot in good conscience take the vaccine.  I believe it is important for them to follow their conscience and I do not want to persuade them to make a different choice.

I think that I have written enough to show any reasonable person that there are good grounds for a traditional Catholic to decide in good conscience to take the vaccine and that such Catholics should neither be despised nor judged. To write further risks becoming an argument against those who have decided on moral grounds to refuse the vaccine.  I do not want to do that. So, unless someone has specific questions for me,  I am done with this topic.

[Melkor]

The morality aspect aside; the "vaccines" themselves are highly questionable on a scientific level. That, and the fact that due to the fake emergency state declared, the vaccine companies have ZERO liability, is extremely worrisome to me. I will not be taking a vaccine for a flu-type variant that I, as a healthy 20 year old, have a less than 1% chance of dying from. Makes no sense to me.

[TradGranny]

Jayne, please read what St. Paul actually says, in context:

1 Corinthians 10: 20-26

[20] But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God. And I would not that you should be made partakers with devils.

[21] You cannot drink the chalice of the Lord, and the chalice of devils: you cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord, and of the table of devils.

[22] Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he? All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient.

[23] All things are lawful for me, but all things do not edify.

[24] Let no man seek his own, but that which is another's.

[25] Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, eat; asking no question for conscience' sake.

[26] The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof.

[27] If any of them that believe not, invite you, and you will be willing to go; eat of any thing that is set before you, asking no question for conscience' sake.

[28] But if any man say: This has been sacrificed to idols, do not eat of it for his sake that told it, and for conscience' sake.

When you originally cited this Bible verse, you did so with the false claim that St. Paul was telling us to respect each others' consciences. Demonstrably, that is not what he was saying.

When St. Paul says "But if any man say: This has been sacrificed to idols, do not eat of it" he is making the same point I have been making. He is making a distinction between the person who is ignorant of the origin of the (sacrificed to idols) meat and the person who is told about the origin of the meat.

The person who is ignorant of the origin is not morally culpable.

However the person who is told of the origin is morally culpable.

Since you are the one who brought up this Bible passage, do you not see that:

The person who is ignorant of the origin of vaccines (hysterectomies of live babies and within five minutes, their kidneys are stolen and the babies are killed) is not morally culpable.

However the person who is told of the origin is morally culpable.

All the blather about "remote" and "only one baby was killed" (not true, by the way, 100s are killed for each separate Human Embryonic Kidney cell-line, according to Pamela Acker and other whistleblowers) is simply rationalization for doing what one wants to do.

St. John says:
they loved not their lives unto death