01-12-2022, 06:06 PM
It was ambiguous and I felt like he was pointing the fingers at the anti vaxxers when he said we have the stance of My Body My choice." Very sad that a lot of people are not smelling the funk in the new SSPX. Maybe it's my maternal instinct knowing that things are not right but I still attend the new SSPX because i don't have Fr. Hewko nearby or any of the MC SSPX Priests. ???? Archbishop Lefreve Ora Pro Nobis.
(01-12-2022, 10:07 AM)Stone Wrote: In stark contrast to the now conciliar-SSPX's deliberate silence and lack of leadership on this important issue, the once traditional-SSPX did not shirk from pronouncing the truth and guiding souls to make decisions that would save their souls!
In quite plain language, Fr. Peter Scott's answer to the question on vaccines linked to abortion, which appeared in The Angelus of 2000, was not indecisive, it was not cowardly, it clearly was that of a priest being a good shepherd to the souls entrusted to him.
But the influence of the Conciliar Church continues to manifest itself throughout the SSPX leadership since 2012 (cf. The Doctrinal Declaration) in the official and unofficial actions of the now conciliar-SSPX.
Notice in Fr. Scott's answer below, there is no 'debate!' There is no need for 'prudence.' It was a firm 'No!'
Quote:Question:.
Is it licit to allow one's children to be vaccinated for rubella with vaccine manufactured with the help of fetal cells from aborted babies?
Answer:
There is no doubt that it is illicit to prepare vaccinations by the use of cell cultures from aborted babies. It certainly is a very troublesome situation if the only way of obtaining such necessary vaccines is from cultures prepared from the by-products of abortions.
The question here is whether or not it is permissible to use such vaccines if they are the only ones that are readily available. Can the principles of double effect be applied, that is when only a good effect is directly willed, and a bad effect is simply permitted, but not directly willed in itself? The good effect in this case is the immunization against the infectious disease. The bad effect is the abortion, the killing of the innocent. It is never permitted to do something evil in order that a good can come of it, that it, it is never permitted for the good effect to come from the bad effect. However it is possible to permit an evil, that is not directly willed in itself, and this is called the indirect voluntary.
Here one could argue that the person who seeks the vaccination does not will the abortion, but simply uses the cells that are obtained as a consequence . However, the vaccine is not just an indirect effect of the abortion. There is in fact a direct line of causality, from the abortion, to the available fetal cells to the development of the vaccine, to the immunization. Therefore, the immunization is a direct consequence of the abortion, and not just an indirect effect. Consequently, it would be immoral to use a vaccine that one knew was developed in fetal cells, not matter how great the advantage to be procured.
Moreover, even if it were to be admitted that the vaccination is not a direct consequence of the abortion, for the abortion is not performed directly in order to obtain fetal cells, and those who use them might claim, as for themselves, that they do not directly will the abortion in itself, the Catholic sense tells the faithful that they can never use the by-products of abortions for any reason at all, for by so doing they promote the mass murder of the innocent which is destroying modern society and all sense of morality. There must always be a proportionate reason to use the indirect voluntary, that is to permit something evil which is not directly willed. Here the reasonable gain obtained by the use of the double effect (if it truly were indirectly willed only, which it is not) would not in any way be proportionate to the horrible evil of abortion and the scandal would be immense.
If a parent is not aware of the fact that fetal cells are being used in the culture of the vaccines that he or she is giving to his/her children, then clearly there is no moral fault involved. However, if he/she is aware of this, then he/she is morally obliged to refuse such vaccinations on principle, until such time as they can be obtained from cultures which are morally licit. Furthermore, if civil law should make such vaccinations obligatory (e.g., for attendance at school), then the parent would be obliged to object in conscience to such immoral means of vaccinating their children.
Moreover, it is not permissible to remain in willful ignorance on such a question. If there is a positive reason to suspect that fetal cells are indeed involved in the production of the vaccine, then a person is morally obliged to clarify the matter, and find out if this is indeed true or not