Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
Ask a Traditionalist / Re: How is this not a sin?
« Last post by Bernadette on July 27, 2021, 06:07:40 PM »
I would say yes, Mike, although it's an unpopular answer.
22

So to be clear, are you saying that this:

"coronavirus vaccines can never justify the killing of unborn babies. On the contrary, this vaccine seems to be used as a means to getting us more and more used to the killing of babies for the sake of humanity"

is inconsistent with pre-conciliar moral theology?

If so, are you on drugs?

You accusation that I am on drugs because I disagree  is unworthy of a Catholic.

I apologize for asking if you were on drugs. The reason I asked was the irrationality of your calling the quote from Archbishop Vigano  "inconsistent with pre-concilliar moral theology".

Since it is perfectly consistent with Traditional Catholic Moral Theology, please elaborate on this seemingly non-sensical statement. (Remembering, of course, that Modernist heresy was infiltrating into the Church as far back as the lat 1800s, as evidenced by Papal Encyclicals of that era.) In other words, outliers don't represent the whole.

You are correct, I should have stated that:
Quote
If Archbishop Vigano means that we can never receive a morally tainted vaccine because the cells from two aborted babies were used to create the cell-lines. Then his is incorrect.  The Catholic Principles of Moral Theology with regards to cooperation in evil outline the situations where it is permitted and the obligations upon those who do.


23
General Catholic Discussion / Re: Cell lines from aborted babies
« Last post by tradical on July 27, 2021, 05:52:05 PM »
This presents the SSPX position and counter-arguments.

The SSPX has endorsed the position of Fr. Arnaud Selegny (a priest of the French District), which is available here:

https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/it-morally-permissible-use-covid-19-vaccine-62290

Essentially, his argument boils down to this excerpt:

"But what if, in a particular case, a person finds it necessary to be vaccinated and is unable to obtain a "licit" vaccine, having only an "illicit" vaccine available? This may occur for health reasons (vulnerable elderly person), or because of the professional situation (exposed medical personnel) or for professional reasons, such as traveling by plane. There is already at least one airline – Qantas in this case – which has warned that, as soon as vaccines are available, it will require vaccination to accept a passenger. It is very likely that this requirement will be quickly taken up by many airlines.  As cooperation is only distant, and the reason given is serious enough, it is possible in these cases to use such a vaccine."

In other words, they say that so long as there is grave necessity, and proportionality between the evil to be committed and the good to be attained, the jab is licit.

Those who oppose this position counter with one (or more) of three main arguments:

1) It is never licit, under any circumstances, to accept an abortion jab.  Those who hold this position would include Cardinal Burke, Archbishop Vigano, all four of the Resistance bishops, all the main sedevacantist bishops, many priests within the SSPX itself, the entire SSPX before the non-authoritative Vatican document, and many lesser known conciliar bishops (e.g., Bishop Strickland of Texas).

Some reasons advanced by those taking this position include the following:

A) The 2005 document is based upon a mistake of fact (i.e., that the vaccines are developed form material taken from an aborted baby decades ago), whereas in fact, periodical abortions are necessary to produce the numbers of vaccines in demand and over time.  Therefore the cooperation in evil is not remote, but present and ongoing.

The rebuttal to this position is that the "remoteness" under consideration here is not temporal, but causal (i.e., not how recent or distant the abortion was in time, but how many "steps" exist between the murder and the injection).

B) The counter-rebuttal then becomes: The line of causation is continuous and uninterrupted (i.e., the cooperation in evil is not remote material, but formal, which is never permitted).

C) Still another couner-rebuttal is, if ongoing abortions are necessary to meet demand, then receiving the jab is promoting the practice of abortion, trafficking in baby parts, and the entire.


2) Supposing for the sake of argument, that necessity and proportionality could make the use of abortion jabs permissible, nevertheless, those conditions are still not present:

The examples of causes adduced by Fr. Selegny (e.g., threat of job loss; inability to board a plane; underlying medical condition; danger of death; etc.) all seem to fall short on both counts.

As regards proportionality between the evil cooperated in, and the good to be attained, most people recognize that only blood is proportionate to blood (i.e., only death is proportionate to death).  Already we can eliminate, therefore, job losss and boarding airplanes as goods proportionate to abortion/murder.  As regards underlying medical conditions, this is propaganda: Those with underlying medical conditions are MORE likely to suffer serious adverse effects from the jab than they would from the virus (and it has also been noted that the age group most vulnerable to mortality is also well past the average human lifespan anyway), and across the population at large, even if one accepts the doctored mortality numbers, there still is only a o.o3% chance of death (much lowerstill if one eliminated the fake cause of death hospitals are incentivized to report).

At best, you could say that, for 99.9% of the human population, proportionality and necessity would not be present, and therefore the liceity of the jab would be purely theoretical (just as in the case of the MMR vaccine, for which CDC numbers indicated only 10 deaths out of 3.5 million births in 2019).  Clearly there is no necessity.


3) Other objections to the liceity of the abortion jab pertain to moral preclusions deriviative of abortion, such as unjust possession of stolen property (i.e., the cells themselves), unjust enrichment, and desecration of human remains.


4) Scandal has also been noted by some (i.e., Even if the moral arguments in favor of abortion jabs could objectively be justified according to moral theology, still, the world will not understand, and te mission of the Church will be adversely impacted by the suspicion of hypocrisy).  Proof of this consideration is made obvious, simply by observing the disagreement among Church prelates on the subject.  If even they can't come to agreement, how are casual non-Catholics going to note the subtle justifications which save the Church from the appearance of self-serving hypcrisy?

In the final analysis, taking the jab is against the common good (despite the Satanic propaganda which says that you should take the jab to protect the common good), even if, per argumentum, one could justify it morally.

Had Catholics held strong in the 1990's against the alleged liceity of the MMR shot, we would not in 2021 be speaking of the alleged liceity of the abortion COVID jab, and perhaps the alchemists and sorcerers (i.e., pharmakeus is the Greek work for sorcerer)would have offered a non-abortive option for people who have mistakenly bought into the need for a "vaccine."

The only way to end the antichrist control big pharma exerts over society, and its dependence upon the murder of innocent babies, is to categorically reject, under any circumstance, to take their death serum.

As Bishops Vigano, Strickland, and Schneider have noted, we may be put to the test, and asked to testify to our faith with our blood, as so many previous generations of Catholics have had to do.

TradGran - are you certain that you want to start off with an argument of authorities that 'resistance' bishops?

I could simply respond with One Bad Vicar of Christ, numerous Cardinals, Bishops, Moral Theologians and the SSPX.


No, this is not my work. The first part, with citation provided is from SSPX. The second part is from someone on Cath Info, which I thought I cited but evidently did not.

In regard to your comment about resistance bishops, this is the context:
It is never licit, under any circumstances, to accept an abortion jab.  Those who hold this position would include Cardinal Burke, Archbishop Vigano, all four of the Resistance bishops, all the main sedevacantist bishops, many priests within the SSPX itself, the entire SSPX before the non-authoritative Vatican document, and many lesser known conciliar bishops (e.g., Bishop Strickland of Texas).

Cherry picking?
Cherry picking? 

What matters are the relevant principles, whether they are Catholic and applied correctly.
24

So to be clear, are you saying that this:

"coronavirus vaccines can never justify the killing of unborn babies. On the contrary, this vaccine seems to be used as a means to getting us more and more used to the killing of babies for the sake of humanity"

is inconsistent with pre-conciliar moral theology?

If so, are you on drugs?

You accusation that I am on drugs because I disagree  is unworthy of a Catholic.

I apologize for asking if you were on drugs. The reason I asked was the irrationality of your calling the quote from Archbishop Vigano  "inconsistent with pre-concilliar moral theology".

Since it is perfectly consistent with Traditional Catholic Moral Theology, please elaborate on this seemingly non-sensical statement. (Remembering, of course, that Modernist heresy was infiltrating into the Church as far back as the lat 1800s, as evidenced by Papal Encyclicals of that era.) In other words, outliers don't represent the whole.
25
General Catholic Discussion / Re: Cell lines from aborted babies
« Last post by TradGranny on July 27, 2021, 05:17:27 PM »
This presents the SSPX position and counter-arguments.

The SSPX has endorsed the position of Fr. Arnaud Selegny (a priest of the French District), which is available here:

https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/it-morally-permissible-use-covid-19-vaccine-62290

Essentially, his argument boils down to this excerpt:

"But what if, in a particular case, a person finds it necessary to be vaccinated and is unable to obtain a "licit" vaccine, having only an "illicit" vaccine available? This may occur for health reasons (vulnerable elderly person), or because of the professional situation (exposed medical personnel) or for professional reasons, such as traveling by plane. There is already at least one airline – Qantas in this case – which has warned that, as soon as vaccines are available, it will require vaccination to accept a passenger. It is very likely that this requirement will be quickly taken up by many airlines.  As cooperation is only distant, and the reason given is serious enough, it is possible in these cases to use such a vaccine."

In other words, they say that so long as there is grave necessity, and proportionality between the evil to be committed and the good to be attained, the jab is licit.

Those who oppose this position counter with one (or more) of three main arguments:

1) It is never licit, under any circumstances, to accept an abortion jab.  Those who hold this position would include Cardinal Burke, Archbishop Vigano, all four of the Resistance bishops, all the main sedevacantist bishops, many priests within the SSPX itself, the entire SSPX before the non-authoritative Vatican document, and many lesser known conciliar bishops (e.g., Bishop Strickland of Texas).

Some reasons advanced by those taking this position include the following:

A) The 2005 document is based upon a mistake of fact (i.e., that the vaccines are developed form material taken from an aborted baby decades ago), whereas in fact, periodical abortions are necessary to produce the numbers of vaccines in demand and over time.  Therefore the cooperation in evil is not remote, but present and ongoing.

The rebuttal to this position is that the "remoteness" under consideration here is not temporal, but causal (i.e., not how recent or distant the abortion was in time, but how many "steps" exist between the murder and the injection).

B) The counter-rebuttal then becomes: The line of causation is continuous and uninterrupted (i.e., the cooperation in evil is not remote material, but formal, which is never permitted).

C) Still another couner-rebuttal is, if ongoing abortions are necessary to meet demand, then receiving the jab is promoting the practice of abortion, trafficking in baby parts, and the entire.


2) Supposing for the sake of argument, that necessity and proportionality could make the use of abortion jabs permissible, nevertheless, those conditions are still not present:

The examples of causes adduced by Fr. Selegny (e.g., threat of job loss; inability to board a plane; underlying medical condition; danger of death; etc.) all seem to fall short on both counts.

As regards proportionality between the evil cooperated in, and the good to be attained, most people recognize that only blood is proportionate to blood (i.e., only death is proportionate to death).  Already we can eliminate, therefore, job losss and boarding airplanes as goods proportionate to abortion/murder.  As regards underlying medical conditions, this is propaganda: Those with underlying medical conditions are MORE likely to suffer serious adverse effects from the jab than they would from the virus (and it has also been noted that the age group most vulnerable to mortality is also well past the average human lifespan anyway), and across the population at large, even if one accepts the doctored mortality numbers, there still is only a o.o3% chance of death (much lowerstill if one eliminated the fake cause of death hospitals are incentivized to report).

At best, you could say that, for 99.9% of the human population, proportionality and necessity would not be present, and therefore the liceity of the jab would be purely theoretical (just as in the case of the MMR vaccine, for which CDC numbers indicated only 10 deaths out of 3.5 million births in 2019).  Clearly there is no necessity.


3) Other objections to the liceity of the abortion jab pertain to moral preclusions deriviative of abortion, such as unjust possession of stolen property (i.e., the cells themselves), unjust enrichment, and desecration of human remains.


4) Scandal has also been noted by some (i.e., Even if the moral arguments in favor of abortion jabs could objectively be justified according to moral theology, still, the world will not understand, and te mission of the Church will be adversely impacted by the suspicion of hypocrisy).  Proof of this consideration is made obvious, simply by observing the disagreement among Church prelates on the subject.  If even they can't come to agreement, how are casual non-Catholics going to note the subtle justifications which save the Church from the appearance of self-serving hypcrisy?

In the final analysis, taking the jab is against the common good (despite the Satanic propaganda which says that you should take the jab to protect the common good), even if, per argumentum, one could justify it morally.

Had Catholics held strong in the 1990's against the alleged liceity of the MMR shot, we would not in 2021 be speaking of the alleged liceity of the abortion COVID jab, and perhaps the alchemists and sorcerers (i.e., pharmakeus is the Greek work for sorcerer)would have offered a non-abortive option for people who have mistakenly bought into the need for a "vaccine."

The only way to end the antichrist control big pharma exerts over society, and its dependence upon the murder of innocent babies, is to categorically reject, under any circumstance, to take their death serum.

As Bishops Vigano, Strickland, and Schneider have noted, we may be put to the test, and asked to testify to our faith with our blood, as so many previous generations of Catholics have had to do.

TradGran - are you certain that you want to start off with an argument of authorities that 'resistance' bishops?

I could simply respond with One Bad Vicar of Christ, numerous Cardinals, Bishops, Moral Theologians and the SSPX.


No, this is not my work. The first part, with citation provided is from SSPX. The second part is from someone on Cath Info, which I thought I cited but evidently did not.

In regard to your comment about resistance bishops, this is the context:
It is never licit, under any circumstances, to accept an abortion jab.  Those who hold this position would include Cardinal Burke, Archbishop Vigano, all four of the Resistance bishops, all the main sedevacantist bishops, many priests within the SSPX itself, the entire SSPX before the non-authoritative Vatican document, and many lesser known conciliar bishops (e.g., Bishop Strickland of Texas).

Cherry picking?
26
Ask a Traditionalist / Re: How is this not a sin?
« Last post by james03 on July 27, 2021, 05:05:29 PM »
Quote
Would you say that I committed a sin?

Yes.  Not enough effort.  But you did something, so only venial.
27
General Catholic Discussion / Re: Cell lines from aborted babies
« Last post by Aeternitus on July 27, 2021, 04:46:41 PM »
On the Resistance; I assist at a Resistance Chapel and I have heard Msgr. Zendejas and Fr. Brocard speak very strongly against the vaccines.
I will check and see about the SSPV.

Thanks Michael.  I am interested in something in writing, presenting their respective positions, as quoted.  There are many reasons one may be opposed to vaccines.   
28
General Catholic Discussion / Re: Cell lines from aborted babies
« Last post by tradical on July 27, 2021, 04:39:30 PM »
In reply to https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=25931.msg541366#msg541366

Preamble
Before I launch into my review, I think it is important to state that the moral taint of some of the COVID-19 vaccines derives from the use of cells from the murder of babies.  In the case of HEK-293 and PER-C.6 cell lines, the babies were killed  in ~1973 and 1985, respectively, in 'elective abortions'.

These cell lines are 'immortalized', meaning they continue growing / subdividing indefinitely. This can be verified by a simple google scholar search.

This means that the causal chain for both the HEK-293 and PER-C.6 have their origin in a single immoral act - the murder of an unborn child.  It is this sincle immoral act that taints the vaccines.

These cell can be used in development, testing or production. In the case of the mRNA vaccines, Fetal Cell-lines were used only in testing.  These cell-lines were not used in the production of the vaccine.

As a result the mRNA present the more remote cooperation in evil and therefore are the most moral choice for Catholics.

Counter-Points
Quote
1) It is never licit, under any circumstances, to accept an abortion jab.  Those who hold this position would include Cardinal Burke, Archbishop Vigano, all four of the Resistance bishops, all the main sedevacantist bishops, many priests within the SSPX itself, the entire SSPX before the non-authoritative Vatican document, and many lesser known conciliar bishops (e.g., Bishop Strickland of Texas).

The author has make two errors in this opening statement.  First they make a gross generalization, then they make a faulty appeal to authority.

What is important are the facts and whether or not we have correctly understood both the situation and the Catholic Principles of Moral Theology to guide our actions.

Quote
A) The 2005 document is based upon a mistake of fact (i.e., that the vaccines are developed form material taken from an aborted baby decades ago), whereas in fact, periodical abortions are necessary to produce the numbers of vaccines in demand and over time.  Therefore the cooperation in evil is not remote, but present and ongoing.

The rebuttal to this position is that the "remoteness" under consideration here is not temporal, but causal (i.e., not how recent or distant the abortion was in time, but how many "steps" exist between the murder and the injection).

Quote
B) The counter-rebuttal then becomes: The line of causation is continuous and uninterrupted (i.e., the cooperation in evil is not remote material, but formal, which is never permitted).

Quote
C) Still another couner-rebuttal is, if ongoing abortions are necessary to meet demand, then receiving the jab is promoting the practice of abortion, trafficking in baby parts, and the entire.

Arguments A, B, and C all rest on the assertion that continuous abortions are necessary to sustain the HEK-293 and PER-C.6 cell lines.

The assertion in the first paragraph of A is invalid as the HEK-293 and PER-C.6 cell lines are 'immortal', do not require additional genetic materials to continue to reproduce and therefore do not require additional abortions to be sustained.  This fact, in and of itself, cuts at the root of the author's line of argumentation.

As this is core to the author's thesis, they should present verifiable proof that abortions are being used to sustain the HEK-293 and PER-C.6 cell lines.

The second paragraph of A, is consequently false as the sin of murder was committed in the past. It is not possible to prevent it from happening ergo we are not supporting the action. So there is no moral connection i.e. cooperation is by definition "remote". 

Assertion B seems to be a spawn of 'A'.  A continuous line of causation does not confer a moral connection, it merely maintains the moral taint. See above.

N.B. If the cells had been morally obtained there would be no moral taint. 

Assertion C has already been challenged as false due to the 'immortal' nature of the cell lines in question.  As noted the author needs to present verifiable evidence that this is incorrect.




Quote
2) Supposing for the sake of argument, that necessity and proportionality could make the use of abortion jabs permissible, nevertheless, those conditions are still not present:

The examples of causes adduced by Fr. Selegny (e.g., threat of job loss; inability to board a plane; underlying medical condition; danger of death; etc.) all seem to fall short on both counts.

...

As regards proportionality between the evil cooperated in, and the good to be attained, most people recognize that only blood is proportionate to blood (i.e., only death is proportionate to death).  Already we can eliminate, therefore, job losss and boarding airplanes as goods proportionate to abortion/murder.  As regards underlying medical conditions, this is propaganda: Those with underlying medical conditions are MORE likely to suffer serious adverse effects from the jab than they would from the virus (and it has also been noted that the age group most vulnerable to mortality is also well past the average human lifespan anyway), and across the population at large, even if one accepts the doctored mortality numbers, there still is only a o.o3% chance of death (much lowerstill if one eliminated the fake cause of death hospitals are incentivized to report).

At best, you could say that, for 99.9% of the human population, proportionality and necessity would not be present, and therefore the liceity of the jab would be purely theoretical (just as in the case of the MMR vaccine, for which CDC numbers indicated only 10 deaths out of 3.5 million births in 2019).  Clearly there is no necessity.

This rebuttal is challenged as the threat of job loss, danger of death are listed explicitly in moral theology text as examples for a grave reason.  This is coupled with the principle of moral theology that the gravity of the evil act, the distance, dependence of the evil act on one's cooperation.  (Moral Theology McHugh)

a. Proportionality is not a simple life for life equation.  It also include the factors noted above and causal distance is one of the factors. Hence the more 'remote' from the act proportionality is amerilorated.
b. Applying the label of propaganda is not a relevant argument and the rest of the argument contains half-truths.  There are a number of documented conditions that are linked to higher fatality rates.  If the author wants to disprove this they should provide verifiable references that speak directly to the point in question.
c. There are some medical conditions that are contraindicated or require more care in the decision to be inoculated.  But the generalization doesn't hold up to the reality of these and any other vaccine.
d. The insinuation that the vulnerable group is "beyond the average human lifespan anyway" is disgusting to Catholics and similar to the argument used by advocates for the murder of the elderly. 
e. The assertion that the mortality number are doctored is not supported by evidence. The latest IFR that I've examined is between  0.4% and 1.0%. The CFR is close to that of the 1918 influenza CFR in the states. 
f. The final statment attempts to pass off the impact of a controlled disease for that of its lethality.  In short, the author is attempting to lie with statistics.  The lethality of a disease in an outbreak depends on the inherenet lethality of the disease and the quality of available care.

Quote
3) Other objections to the liceity of the abortion jab pertain to moral preclusions deriviative of abortion, such as unjust possession of stolen property (i.e., the cells themselves), unjust enrichment, and desecration of human remains.

The author is demonstrating ignorance of the production and testing processes.  When used only for testing, no Fetal cells are added to the production batch, so from their point of view the recipient is not receiving 'stolen' goods. 

For those vaccines that use the cell lines for production, the remains of cells are filtered out, but I read in a journal article that there may be DNA fragments.

This means that the mRNA vaccines are currently the most moral alternative and if available, Catholics should select either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.

I will add that I am aware of advances in vaccine production methods that will be untainted if Fetal cells are not used for testing.


Quote
4) Scandal has also been noted by some (i.e., Even if the moral arguments in favor of abortion jabs could objectively be justified according to moral theology, still, the world will not understand, and te mission of the Church will be adversely impacted by the suspicion of hypocrisy).  Proof of this consideration is made obvious, simply by observing the disagreement among Church prelates on the subject.  If even they can't come to agreement, how are casual non-Catholics going to note the subtle justifications which save the Church from the appearance of self-serving hypcrisy?


THE counter-point is that we can't control what people think.  We need to follow Catholid Moral Theology Principles.



Quote
In the final analysis, taking the jab is against the common good (despite the Satanic propaganda which says that you should take the jab to protect the common good), even if, per argumentum, one could justify it morally.

Had Catholics held strong in the 1990's against the alleged liceity of the MMR shot, we would not in 2021 be speaking of the alleged liceity of the abortion COVID jab, and perhaps the alchemists and sorcerers (i.e., pharmakeus is the Greek work for sorcerer)would have offered a non-abortive option for people who have mistakenly bought into the need for a "vaccine."

The only way to end the antichrist control big pharma exerts over society, and its dependence upon the murder of innocent babies, is to categorically reject, under any circumstance, to take their death serum.

As Bishops Vigano, Strickland, and Schneider have noted, we may be put to the test, and asked to testify to our faith with our blood, as so many previous generations of Catholics have had to do.

The good bishops seem to be either ignorant of the moral theology or the facts behind what is causing the moral taint. 

Either way, it doesn't matter since, as Catholics, we follow Catholic Principles not just the opinion of a few good or bad people. That is why I invested the time to research the issue and assess the arguments put forward by Rome and the SSPX.  Conversely, that is why I recognized the in the author's arguments, previous assertions made in the media.



29
Arts and Leisure / Re: What are you currently reading?
« Last post by Bernadette on July 27, 2021, 04:38:14 PM »
The Moonstone, by Wilkie Collins. Considered to be the first detective novel.

How is it?  What age would you say it is good for?
It was really good. There’s a suicide in it though so not for kids. I would say 15 and up.
30
Ask a Traditionalist / Re: How is this not a sin?
« Last post by mikemac on July 27, 2021, 04:24:24 PM »
Okay let's get specific.  When I was in high school on the summer holidays I went to a friends place in Toronto for a week or so.  Just for fun the two of us and another friend got some rotten tomatoes, went to Young Street and threw the rotten tomatoes at the queers coming out of a queer bar.  I shouldn't brag ... ahem ... but I was a pretty good shot.  This was back around the time that young shoe shine boy was taken off of Young Street, sodomized and murdered by two or three queers.

Would you say that I committed a sin?

Personally I see it as righteous anger.  In fact I think if more people had have done something like this back then and not have been so accepting of the queer culture the LGBTQ movement would not be so pushy today.

Yes.  We are not permitted to convert our righteous anger into physical violence.  That's for the proper authorities -- even though I agree that those authorities failed in their responsibilities by removing sodomy from the category of crime.  There would be no end to physical violence if we all acted physically on our passions, no matter how righteous our indignation.

In cases where we have authority over another, such as our own children, we are permitted to exact restrained corporal punishment as a form of correction, but not to strangers over whom we have no authority.

Physically striking another except in imminent self-defense or defense of a third person(s) is a sin.

Well that relates to acceptance of queer culture and how the LGBTQ movement got so pushy like we see today.

Doing something about it is in defense of a third person, you know like the shoe shine boy, so that more children are not sodomized and murdered by queers like he was.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10