Catholic Answers Forum permanently shut down

Dolours,

Every time I walk into the Spiritual Care Office at the hospital where I serve, I observe the growing number of pictures of chaplains who have taken the vaccine. I need to assert that they've taken the vaccine out of a loving concern to contain the spread of covid-19. Here on the form, we have focused so much on the "agenda", on the "Great Reset", that we often minimize personal elements such as the need for income to support a family. Now, my picture is not on the wall as of yet, but surely economics is a personal concern; I still have my precious wife and a home to maintain and even if I tithe a portion of my chaplaincy activity, such income that remains is still necessary.

My son, Fr. Patrick, visited for 5 days. Having home Masses each day was such a blessing (Patrick gives great homilies to boot)! I drove him back to Connecticut on Thursday. We had a marvelous discussion (it went on for a good 90 minutes) concerning the vaccine and the issue of remoteness. He stated that it is imperative that I follow my conscience. But Patrick made a distinction between my emotional, tangible horror of abortion, and the level of culpability in receiving the vaccine. He explained the first as absolute, but the second as involving prudential considerations. Patrick argued that the concept of remoteness dovetails into this idea of prudential concerns which include responsibilities to wife and family. He said such should be an honest appraisal, not simply an excuse to take the vaccine.

Recently I watched a movie about Franz Jägerstätter, an Austrian farmer, who inspired by an executed priest who had refused to take the Oath of Allegiance to Hitler, followed suit. He too was imprisoned and eventually executed. He followed his conscience, praise God. Does that mean every German Catholic who took the oath, didn't follow their conscience? Obviously, Franz had to decide to "abandon" his wife and young children in his choice. His choice set aside all prudential concerns.

Similarly, Archbishop Schneider has taken an absolute position on the vaccine, as has Cardinal Burke. For them to advise so, means they believe all prudential concerns be set aside.

That decision rests in the soul of each person. Such a decision rests in the depths of my soul.

O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee!

 

Mario, I'm not telling anyone what to do about the vaccine. I won't be taking it and have given my reasons (the link to abortion and uncertainty about future side effects) but I can understand why some people can't wait to get it, and I have said so previously. My post on this thread was in the context of what I see as a slipping of standards at CA.

I do think it evil for conscientious objectors to be coerced into taking the vaccine because a refusal would mean losing their livelihood. I can't be sure that some Catholic seminary has given that ultimatum to employees. If it's true, what would be their grave reason given that most if not all seminarians would be healthy young men?

 

This is an evil generation.

We have bodily integrity. No one should be forced to take a vaccine against their will or be discriminated against for not taking it.

Time for some good Catholic lawyers to get ready to defend those who do not want to be coerced if such a thing should happen.

 

As regards losing one's job.

We need to rely on Divine Providence should that happen. God will not abandon us if we follow our conscience.

I am not prepared to take the vaccine.

99.6% of people recover from covid.

 

A lot of Catholics compromised their faith in Germany during the Nazi era - hear no evil, see no evil.

The Zentrum or Catholic Centre party actually helped Hitler get the Enabling Act through the Reichstag, which allowed him to by-pass parliament in making new laws. The Enabling Act was the foundation of Hitler's dictatorship from which much evil flowed.

I pray for all here on the forum so will lift your intentions Terry before the Lord.

 

I think your doctor is wrong. The baby was aborted. It was in the 60’s or early 70’s.

 

At least five of the candidate COVID-19 vaccines use one of two human fetal cell lines: HEK-293, a kidney cell line widely used in research and industry that comes from a fetus aborted in about 1972; and PER.C6, a proprietary cell line owned by Janssen, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, developed from retinal cells from an 18-week-old fetus aborted in 1985. Both cell lines were developed in the lab of molecular biologist Alex van der Eb at Leiden University. Two of the five vaccines have entered human trials (see table, below).
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/abortion-opponents-protest-covid-19-vaccines-use-fetal-cells

 

I won't be taking any vaccines derived off of the murder of others. The very thought of it is ghastly.

For some reason this Bible verse keeps coming to mind from the Book of the Apocalypse whenever I read about these vaccines:
"The first angel went and poured out his bowl on the land, and ugly and painful sores broke out on the people who had the mark of the beast"

That the vaccine and this verse are connected may be something purely from my imagination or perhaps it refers to this or some subsequent injection coming down the pike. I don't know, but from here on out I won't be injecting anything into my body that the government tells me to. Whether or not it is derived from aborted babies.

 

As for the novel RNA vaccine once it goes in you cannot get it out again.

 

If what Roy Schoeman's wife heard from her friend is true, then such a thing has happened in a Catholic seminary.

I have to preface what I'm saying here by stressing that I'm the furthest from being a theologian that you will ever meet. It's just that the remote co-operation and grave reason business smacks to me of situation ethics. If there can be sufficiently grave reason to benefit from a past abortion why couldn't there be sufficiently grave reason to perform an abortion now or in the future?

Pope Benedict said that if the reason is grave enough taking these compromised vaccines is ok. I don't doubt that he thought long and hard about it. Trouble is that he seems to have opened a crack which will continue to be widened until the barrier is no more. Now we have a Pope who turns a blind eye to anything that would make him unpopular with the lukewarm and non-believers. What about the next Pope? What will he permit in the name of serving the common good? I watched Mass online last week where the priest reassured everyone that they will soon be able to go to Mass again when everyone gets the vaccine. He said nothing about grave reason. What about people in his parish who won't take the vaccine? Will they be told to stay away from Mass and Confession unless they can show they were vaccinated? Sounds far-fetched, but it sure looks like we're headed in that direction, if not for this vaccine then for whatever will scare people into ostracising those who won't submit.

When the day comes that we can't buy or sell without the mark of the beast, will we have spiritual leaders telling us that it's a matter of prudential judgement and saving our families from starvation is sufficiently grave reason to take whatever the mark turns out to be?

 

Thank you, HH. Just what I need to show my Chaplain Supervisor (non-Catholic).

Safe in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary!

 

Even if the grave reason argument is valid in this case (and I'm not saying it is or isn't) that would still mean only a fraction of people could use that argument to take this vaccine. Covid has an extremely high survival rate. Only certain groups, such as people over a certain age, or people with compromised health, etc. would meet the criteria of having a grave need for it. The average healthy 35 year old would not have a grave reason to need to take this vaccine.

What's happening here is that a certain theological argument is being made that has narrow application and it is being applied to all. Theologically you could make an argument that this vaccine could be used by someone who would most surely die if they got covid. That is who grave reason is supposed to apply to. Not the general populace.

Of course all of this puts aside the fact that this vaccine was rushed through and no long term side effects are known yet because we have to wait and see what occurs after months or years to people who have taken it.

 

This makes me very uneasy indeed. I am 67 and overweight (ma culpa) and I will take the vaccine. For one thing, my husband is terrified of me catching covid to the point that he begs me not to go beyond my front gate. He says he can't live without me, and he's a covid anorak...

We were inoculated before going to India in 2009, we also have the annual flu jab. I never considered the possibility that these may also have a connection with abortion.

I read an article online in a 'Catholic' context which said that having the covid vaccine (didn't specify which) was equal in culpability to buying products from companies which donate to abortion. Well, boycotting those is something I can do. I looked up a list of these. The most difficult to avoid is Unilever as they own many brands. I have already removed Ben and Jerry's from my online grocery list and replaced with another brand (please God they don't give money to abortion providers). Xerox, Ford Motors and Coca Cola have said that they do not give to Planned Parenthood and don't intend to. Many of the companies listed are American, but I have to do something.

 

Flu shots are made with eggs, no aborted parts.

 

Our Holy Father the Pope says

WE MUST TAKE THE VACCINE

that those who do not take the vaccine

according to Pope Francis, who appears to know everything about everything, Catholics do do not take the vaccine are.....

'..in a State of Suicidal Denial'

 

Thank you, non sum dignus.

Here is a simple fact of our human condition: it it easier to raise up the "more noble moral" standard when not personally involved; it can be a different story for those who will encounter direct or potentially negative impacts by doing so. As some of our members are put more directly in line with governmental mandates than others, we must realize that the NWO will not stop here but continue to tighten the screws to the point where all of us will have to make difficult choices.

Pray, fast, and seek godly counsel, so as to act with a clear conscience.

 

Clare you have to take it to prayer and do what you feel is right. I wasn't trying to instruct anyone that they can't do it. That is between you and God. I was simply stating what I will do, not telling other what they need to do. If you are in the high risk category for death if you got covid then perhaps the grave reason argument would be applicable in your case. Be careful reading "Catholic" articles online, you can find one saying just about anything you want from one extreme to the other. Sometimes the "conservative" articles take things too far as well.

The article you read is most likely referring to remote material cooperation with evil. For example if you work for a pharmaceutical company that makes various drugs and you work on the line producing aspirin bottles, but you discover the company is now also making an abortive drug, you do not need to quit your job in objection. You are not directly cooperating with that sin. There is some cooperation, but it is remote. You are removed from directly participating in it. If you were researching the abortive drug or a salesman for it then you would be directly cooperating and that would be a mortal sin. Then you would be obliged to quit your job and seek employment elsewhere. That argument doesn't directly correlate to making it okay for the general population to receive medicines directly derived from abortions. The grave reason argument is a much better one to use to take a stance justifying taking the vaccine. I am still on the fence about the grave reason argument, but it really needs to be a grave reason, not just a reason. Age and weight might be a grave reason.

 

A distinction should be made between:
1. Vaccines which actually contain the aborted cells.
2. Vaccines that used fetal cells in their production but contain no fetal cells.
3 Vaccines that don't contain fetal cells, fetal cells were not used in their development or production, but after produced the vaccine was tested on fetal cells.

A case could be made that vaccine #3 was a finished, ethical product that was used (tested) immorally.

Certainly vaccine #3 would have a more remote connection than the #1 vaccine to the fetal cells. Is the connection remote enough to make using the vaccine for a grave reason not sinful??? Pope Benedict XVI said there is that possibility.

As to the supposition that since one is in a low mortality risk group (young healthy) the gravity of the reason to use such a vaccine is not sufficient...

You would also have to consider the gravity of risk to others who are in the high risk group. If for example you work in a nursing home the risk of being a carrier would be more grave than one who never encounters older people.

 

Well said

When I said young healthy people I was painting with broad strokes. Obviously people working with people in high risk groups are in a sub-category of their own.

 

I wonder if the Holy Father, Pope Francis, has an opinion om hat food I should feed my dogs?

Formerly Popes were supposed to have decrees on on Faith and Morals?


What dog food might be good for my dogs, Holy Father?

What kind of wall paper would look good on my walls when I redecorate?

Where should I go on my next holiday?

What is my best choice for my next car?

You who knows everything?