Cell lines from aborted babies

[Aeternitus]

Hi Aeternitus,

The latest info I obtained was about 3 months ago in this newsletter from Fr. Stephen McKenna, associated with SGG and Bp. Dolan.
I forgot from which site  I downloaded the newsletter so I uploaded it to my Google Drive. He was also the priest featured on Restoration Radio discussing the liceity of taking abortion-tainted vaccines (his radio interview predated the COVID era).
URL of newsletter: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rP_-crkoR0qHWqE4u26x0PWzLPoTp-cx/view?usp=drivesdk

The conclusions in this latest newsletter are below:

And so here we are, at the beginning of 2021...In one year, our lives and society have been drastically changed and it seems, at least in some degree, in a way that may never return to normal.  The media, politicians, a powerful elite present us with a solution to a problem that is seemingly caused by themselves.  Of that solution, you are not allowed to question whether it is beneficial or harmful.  New technology is introduced, based in genetic manipulation, containing foreign, artificial, and potentially harmful additives and adjuvants, manifesting early side-effects which are summarily dismissed as unconnected, despite having no scientific study or evidence to back such a claim.   The potential long term side-effects are unknowable because there have been no long term tests.  This unproven technology is being rushed forward to mass production by companies who are immune from any liability or responsibility and stand to earn billions of dollars for early delivery, by world leaders who are members of forums which are promoting radical social upheaval to remake society in a "Great Reset", and by a sweater wearing tech billionaire, whose own "philanthropic and humanistic" foundation has been accused of crimes against humanity for conducting secret genetic and pharmaceutical experiments upon unsuspecting impoverished children of third world countries...experiments for drugs which he has made billions of dollars from, due to his own investments. All of this cannot be spoken of.  If you do, you are labeled a "science denier" and "conspiracy theorist".  But the actual science leaves us with more questions and concerns than answers.   

The concerns about what may be the long-term effects upon one's health from receiving the vaccine are definitely enough to cause me to hold up a cautionary hand against getting in line at your local clinic to receive it.  This is especially given that the risks are largely unquantified and unknown, while the potential benefits are so minimal, i.e. only a possible reduction in the severity of symptoms for a virus which, symptomatically, merely presents itself as a flu to almost all infected and has a greater than 99% survival rate.  However, when we add to this the reality that it is all tied directly to the destruction of personal and religious rights, forwarding of socialistic societal takeover, and a planned remaking of the world, we must sincerely rethink if we want to have any part of this cabal...or, if it is here, where we draw the line in the sand and begin the fight back.

Many thanks for these links.  I listened to the radio segment and read the newsletter piece and found them both extremely interesting.

Father's position in no way supports the claim quoted in post #75.  "It is never licit, under any circumstances, to accept an abortion jab."

In contrast, on the morality involved, he states:  "in terms of the sinfulness for a human being, we can say, with full confidence, that participation in it [being vaccinated] is not a sinful action..."

He discredits the Lifesite News information that they are repeatedly procuring more abortions for vaccinations as "simply not true" (16min +).  He qualifies this as being the case at the date of recording 26/06/2020.  He quotes his own qualified sources, also traditional Catholics, for this information.  Perhaps he has not heard of Pamela Ackers, but her information conflicts with Father's sources. 

Father's newsletter, on the other hand, does not address the morality of the question, but instead presents cogent and compelling arguments about the practical side of vaccinations.   I think all who have the good fortune to have access to these arguments should read them before making up their minds on this open question.

But it is an open question, left to the individual and/or parents.   Novus Ordo Watch sponsored this episode on vaccinations to make it available to the general public in December 2020.  Initially, it was only available to subscribers of Restoration Radio.  Novus Ordo Watch also make the disclaimer:  "we are not encouraging anyone to either take or not take any particular vaccine, whether for Covid-19, the flu or any other disease or condition".  They too are leaving it to the judgement of the individual or parents. 

So, I am yet to see any evidence as quoted from post  #75 above:

It is never licit, under any circumstances, to accept an abortion jab.  Those who hold this position would include...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...

"Holding up a cautionary hand", as Fr puts it, is a far cry from "it is never licit". 


 

[TradGranny]

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? 

Yes it is cherry picking aka taking something out of context, for you to read the bolded statement above and reply as if ONLY resistance bishops say it is immoral to benefit from baby-killing pseudo-vaccines.

[tradical]

Yes it is cherry picking aka taking something out of context, for you to read the bolded statement above and reply as if ONLY resistance bishops say it is immoral to benefit from baby-killing pseudo-vaccines.

Yep - I'm human.

Also, I missed a word:

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

[tradical]

[

- I have a number of texts but the ones available online are below.

MORAL THEOLOGY
A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Best Modern Authorities
BY
JOHN A. MCHUGH, O.P.
AND
CHARLES J. CALLAN, O.P.
REVISED AND ENLARGED BY
EDWARD P. FARRELL, O.P.
1958

HANDBOOK of MORAL THEOLOGY
by
Dominic Mo Prummer, OP
1955

Tradical, only getting to this now, busy weekend and all....can you narrow it down to even just the chapters?  I have sourced one of the books online but tbh Christmas would come sooner than me getting to read both books on moral theolgoy!

As promised, here's the key references.

References
   Prummer
      Co-operation in Evil PDF 52, Paper 103
      Indiretcly Voluntary Acts PDF 18, Paper13
         This delves into the principle of double-effect
   McHugh Callan
      Co-operation in Evil PDF 492, Article 1506

[tradical]

[

- I have a number of texts but the ones available online are below.

MORAL THEOLOGY
A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Best Modern Authorities
BY
JOHN A. MCHUGH, O.P.
AND
CHARLES J. CALLAN, O.P.
REVISED AND ENLARGED BY
EDWARD P. FARRELL, O.P.
1958

HANDBOOK of MORAL THEOLOGY
by
Dominic Mo Prummer, OP
1955

Tradical, only getting to this now, busy weekend and all....can you narrow it down to even just the chapters?  I have sourced one of the books online but tbh Christmas would come sooner than me getting to read both books on moral theolgoy!

As promised, here's the key references.

References
   Prummer
      Co-operation in Evil PDF 52, Paper 103
      Indiretcly Voluntary Acts PDF 18, Paper13
         This delves into the principle of double-effect
   McHugh Callan
      Co-operation in Evil PDF 492, Article 1506

Diaduit,
I'm returning to work so I'll be off the forum again.  If you want to contact me, please post a comment at tradicat.blogspot.com.

Cheers!

[Lynne]

Another news article.

https://www.lifenews.com/2021/08/05/university-admits-harvesting-kidneys-from-unborn-babies-while-their-hearts-are-still-beating/

"Pitt is now admitting to the news media that the aborted babies are still alive at the time their kidneys are cut out for [National Institutes of Health] grant money," said David Daleiden, founder and president of the Center for Medical Progress.

Daleiden continued: "Pitt's grant application for GUDMAP advertised this to the federal government and that labor induction abortions, where the baby is pushed out of the mother whole, would be 'used to obtain the tissue.' The plain meaning of the GUDMAP grant application, and the University of Pittsburgh's statement explaining it, is that Pitt and the Planned Parenthood abortion providers responsible for its 'research' abortions are allowing babies, some of the age of viability, to be delivered alive, and then killing them by cutting their kidneys out."

The basis for this came from a statement university spokesman David Seldin made to Fox News about "ischemia time," which he said "refers to the time after the tissue collection procedure."

The Center for Medical Progress explained:

Ischemia starts when the organ (the kidneys primarily in Pitt's GUDMAP project) is cut off from blood circulation. The NIH defines ischemia as "lack of blood supply to a part of the body." The University states the fetal organs do not undergo ischemia—lose their blood supply—until "after the tissue collection procedure". This means the organs are still receiving blood supply from the fetal heartbeat during the "tissue collection".

In grant application documents provided by the federal government, the University of Pittsburgh mentions "labor induction" as a "procedure that will be used to obtain the tissue," according to the Center for Medical Progress.

Labor induction abortions are basically what they sound like; the abortionist typically injects digoxin or another poison into the unborn baby's heart to kill him/her and then induces labor so that the mother gives birth to her dead baby's body. This method is used in later second- and third-trimester abortions.

If digoxin is not used – and the Center for Medical Progress found that scientists want "fetal tissue" without digoxin because the poison interferes with their research, there is a chance of the baby being born alive. Research indicates up to 50 percent of labor-induction abortions without digoxin can result in an infant born alive.

This is so horrifying.

[Wenceslav]

Hi Aeternitus,

The latest info I obtained was about 3 months ago in this newsletter from Fr. Stephen McKenna, associated with SGG and Bp. Dolan.
I forgot from which site  I downloaded the newsletter so I uploaded it to my Google Drive. He was also the priest featured on Restoration Radio discussing the liceity of taking abortion-tainted vaccines (his radio interview predated the COVID era).
URL of newsletter: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rP_-crkoR0qHWqE4u26x0PWzLPoTp-cx/view?usp=drivesdk

The conclusions in this latest newsletter are below:

And so here we are, at the beginning of 2021...In one year, our lives and society have been drastically changed and it seems, at least in some degree, in a way that may never return to normal.  The media, politicians, a powerful elite present us with a solution to a problem that is seemingly caused by themselves.  Of that solution, you are not allowed to question whether it is beneficial or harmful.  New technology is introduced, based in genetic manipulation, containing foreign, artificial, and potentially harmful additives and adjuvants, manifesting early side-effects which are summarily dismissed as unconnected, despite having no scientific study or evidence to back such a claim.   The potential long term side-effects are unknowable because there have been no long term tests.  This unproven technology is being rushed forward to mass production by companies who are immune from any liability or responsibility and stand to earn billions of dollars for early delivery, by world leaders who are members of forums which are promoting radical social upheaval to remake society in a "Great Reset", and by a sweater wearing tech billionaire, whose own "philanthropic and humanistic" foundation has been accused of crimes against humanity for conducting secret genetic and pharmaceutical experiments upon unsuspecting impoverished children of third world countries...experiments for drugs which he has made billions of dollars from, due to his own investments. All of this cannot be spoken of.  If you do, you are labeled a "science denier" and "conspiracy theorist".  But the actual science leaves us with more questions and concerns than answers.   

The concerns about what may be the long-term effects upon one's health from receiving the vaccine are definitely enough to cause me to hold up a cautionary hand against getting in line at your local clinic to receive it.  This is especially given that the risks are largely unquantified and unknown, while the potential benefits are so minimal, i.e. only a possible reduction in the severity of symptoms for a virus which, symptomatically, merely presents itself as a flu to almost all infected and has a greater than 99% survival rate.  However, when we add to this the reality that it is all tied directly to the destruction of personal and religious rights, forwarding of socialistic societal takeover, and a planned remaking of the world, we must sincerely rethink if we want to have any part of this cabal...or, if it is here, where we draw the line in the sand and begin the fight back.

Many thanks for these links.  I listened to the radio segment and read the newsletter piece and found them both extremely interesting.

Father's position in no way supports the claim quoted in post #75.  "It is never licit, under any circumstances, to accept an abortion jab."

In contrast, on the morality involved, he states:  "in terms of the sinfulness for a human being, we can say, with full confidence, that participation in it [being vaccinated] is not a sinful action..."

He discredits the Lifesite News information that they are repeatedly procuring more abortions for vaccinations as "simply not true" (16min +).  He qualifies this as being the case at the date of recording 26/06/2020.  He quotes his own qualified sources, also traditional Catholics, for this information.  Perhaps he has not heard of Pamela Ackers, but her information conflicts with Father's sources. 

Father's newsletter, on the other hand, does not address the morality of the question, but instead presents cogent and compelling arguments about the practical side of vaccinations.   I think all who have the good fortune to have access to these arguments should read them before making up their minds on this open question.

But it is an open question, left to the individual and/or parents.   Novus Ordo Watch sponsored this episode on vaccinations to make it available to the general public in December 2020.  Initially, it was only available to subscribers of Restoration Radio.  Novus Ordo Watch also make the disclaimer:  "we are not encouraging anyone to either take or not take any particular vaccine, whether for Covid-19, the flu or any other disease or condition".  They too are leaving it to the judgement of the individual or parents. 

So, I am yet to see any evidence as quoted from post  #75 above:

It is never licit, under any circumstances, to accept an abortion jab.  Those who hold this position would include...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...

"Holding up a cautionary hand", as Fr puts it, is a far cry from "it is never licit". 

Hi Aeternitus,

It seems that Bp. Dolan and Fr. McKenna have taken the position that the COVID vaccination is gravely sinful. This is the most recent newsletter from Fr. McKenna which was published in SGG bulletin for Sunday July 25, 2021. It is a most interesting read and is another very cogent argument for not taking the vaccine (in addition to the vaccine's link to abortion, in my opinion)
Link to bulletin: http://www.sgg.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/20210725.pdf

SIN OF THE JAB: A BRIEF EXPLANATION
Much buzz has come about regarding Bishop Dolans sermon last week, where he talked about how receiving the Covid shots would violate the moral law in a serious way, and thus be mortally sinful. Here is a very brief and simple explanation why the principles of Moral Theology would prohibit one from receiving the jab.
The so-called vaccine is not to be thought of as a thoroughly tested and proven mode of treatment. Instead, one must view it as an experimental trial of unproven technology by inoculation. ^s such, if must be treated under different parameters for deter-mining allowability. To help you best understand, it is necessary to grasp that experimental therapy is generally NOT allowed, under most circumstances. So what are the circumstances? Here are a few:

1) The subject of the experimental therapy must be sick. It is forbidden to receive experimental treatment if a person is either deemed incurable, or is healthy, because they would incur all of the risk irithout the benefit. It is for this reason that even American Law prohibits the development of vaccines when effective therapeutics can be developed or obtained. It is also the reason that the government refused to fund research into hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, or others, as a therapeutic would have prevented them from developing a much more lucrative and society controlling vaccine.

2) The necessity and good result to be obtained must be proportionate to the risk. If the risk be high, the necessity for it must also be grave, as well as the risk of the dlsease itself. Since Covid-19 is only, for most, a flu and that the risk of death or prolonged harm is also very low, especially for people in generally good health, it would not be permissible to participate in an experimental trial for a vaccine which carries the risk of death, strokes, blood clots, infertility, and other damaging consequences. Such a risk may only be undertaken when less dangerous remedies have failed and the saving of his life hinges on the success of this venture. (McFadden, Medical Ethics)

3) The sole motive prompting one to participate in trial experiment must be for the desired good effect: in this case, immunity. Nobody can promise you that. Furthermore, many have a contributing or dominating motivatlon of pressure from family, job, education, government, or return to normal.

4) Free and fully informed consent must necessarily be given for reception. The Geneva Convention outlines this must be free from any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion. This is far from the case today, given the external pressure. Also, the Geneva Convention states ati potential risks to health must be clearly stated. Again, this is not presented unless asked for, and then the list is only partial at best. Nothing about this vaccine is true, from the word vaccine on down.

[Aeternitus]

Thank you, Wenceslav. 

[lauermar]

All use of fetal cells is ghoulish, and its use is growing more than most realize. The PETA movement has succeeded in getting animal testing down to a bare minimum. They won't be happy until it's completely gone. They want to substitute only fetal cell testing for all new products. Not just medicines, but cosmetics, flavorings, dyes, toiletries, household cleaners, etc. They have succeeded in convincing most pro-lifers that animal testing is wrong too, and pro-lifers actually support PETA. Until a group that wants to restore animal testing is able to amass enough political power, we're not going to see the end of this practice.

[Kathleen]

Two articles on the torture and vivisection of living babies committed with US funds at U of P:

https://thefederalist.com/2021/08/09/investigate-now-federal-grants-sponsored-possibly-live-baby-harvesting-at-university-of-pittsburgh/

https://www.lifenews.com/2021/08/17/university-used-body-parts-harvested-from-babies-who-were-still-alive-it-must-be-investigated/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+lifenews%252Fnewsfeed+(LifeNews.com)

[Lynne]

All use of fetal cells is ghoulish, and its use is growing more than most realize. The PETA movement has succeeded in getting animal testing down to a bare minimum. They won't be happy until it's completely gone. They want to substitute only fetal cell testing for all new products. Not just medicines, but cosmetics, flavorings, dyes, toiletries, household cleaners, etc. They have succeeded in convincing most pro-lifers that animal testing is wrong too, and pro-lifers actually support PETA. Until a group that wants to restore animal testing is able to amass enough political power, we're not going to see the end of this practice.

PETA is a corrupt organization.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/08/watch-tiger-kings-tim-stark-exposes-petas-expert-previously-lied-cheetah-attack-causing-dog-killed-video/

I have not personally viewed what is at that link. It sounds ghoulish.

[TradGranny]

I personally know over 200 pro-life activists, and all of them are fully aware that PETA is evil. Our main work is to protect babies. If you, Lauermar, want to battle PETA, go for it.

[lauermar]

If there are 200 prolifers who recognize PETA as an evil agency, that doesn't say much for the rest of millions of prolifers that take no public opinion on it. No mention of PETA is made at any of the rallies or in print, or on the internet. It will take more than 200 to reverse fetal cell testing.

[TradGranny]

If there are 200 prolifers who recognize PETA as an evil agency, that doesn't say much for the rest of millions of prolifers that take no public opinion on it. No mention of PETA is made at any of the rallies or in print, or on the internet. It will take more than 200 to reverse fetal cell testing.

Logically, to put an end to the killing human beings in the name of "science," the best approach is to attempt to educate people regarding the sanctity of human life (and God who is the Creator). The sad truth is that the baby-killers will happily transition to killers of the unvaxxed.

watch this video

http://overdeewall.com/a-must-watch-video/