Are the Vaccines licitly moral?

Some Catholics argue in favour of the moral licitness of these vaccines? Yet the same rightfully argue against Dignitatus Humane DH which separated the moral certitude of the Church from the worldly inclines of the State.
If it can be reasonably argued that Dignitatis Humane DH pathed the way for Catholic Nations to legalise abortion. Then application of the same argument would mean that, DH in no small measure lead to the collection of Human Embryonic Kidney cells HEK used in the COVID-19 vaccine platform technologies?

1. The following article A Question of Doctrine: Religious Liberty According to Vatican II it argues in “The Declaration’s Defects -The declaration Dignitatis Humanae extends these principles beyond all measure (“all men”, “any coercion”, “any human power”). It insists upon the fact that the State cannot exercise any constraint in religious matters.” “The fact that all religions except the Catholic religion admit either divorce, or contraception or even abortion, that they are capable of justifying if need be lies, theft, duplicity, usury, mutilations and other ignominies that tear apart the family, the natural basic cell of society, promoting immoral laws, does not leave the common good intact; in fact, it serious harms it. When the light of the true religion enlightens the minds that govern public life, freedom to reject it is simply the freedom to damn oneself.”

2. Besides the above, Rev. JL Iannuzzi, STL, S.Th.D arguing against forced vaccines raises complications in the voluntary acceptance of the same.

“First, in order for an individual to consider taking or refusing a vaccine several criteria must be met: 1) the vaccine would have to present no ethical objections at all in its development; 2) it would have to be certain in its effectiveness; 3) it would have to be safe beyond doubt; 4) there would have to be no other options to protect oneself and others against the virus. Many respected and accredited physicians renowned in the fields of immunology and molecular biology have demonstrated that none one of these four conditions have completely been met. Nonetheless, some assert that despite the vaccines’ unguaranteed safeness and possible ineffectiveness in stopping the spread of the virus, Christians have a moral obligation to get vaccinated. Those that make this claim often refer to state “mandates,” and not laws, and to secular and/or ecclesial leaders that have recommended the vaccines. Apropos of those ecclesial leaders recommending said vaccines, it is important to note that the competency of such leaders resides in matters pertaining to “faith, morals and church discipline,” and not in the fields of medicine, immunology or vaccines. Insofar as the four aforesaid criteria have not been met, ecclesial statements on vaccines do not constitute Church teaching and are not morally binding to the Christian faithful; rather, they constitute “recommendations, “suggestions” or “opinions,” as they are beyond the purview of ecclesial competency.”

“As in the past, so today ecclesial leaders obtain information on immunology and vaccines from medical experts who, while reliable in their field of science, are not immune from error, and this is especially so when the vaccines are “on trial” while, at the same time, being administered to humans. It is precisely on account of this ‘trial’ phase and the uncertainty of the vaccine’s efficacy, safety and long-term side-effects that one must exercise a prudential judgment with a well-informed conscience.”

“For there to be such an obligation, a number of conditions would need to be met. Assuming there is a real danger: 1) the vaccine would have to present no ethical objections at all in its development; 2) it would have to be certain in its effectiveness; 3) it would have to be safe beyond doubt; 4) there would have to be no other options to protect oneself and others against the virus. Now, none of these conditions are met. The gravest objection to the vaccines currently available, is that they all use in some way stem cells deduced from the organs of an aborted baby who, in order to obtain those organs intact, was dismembered while still alive. In other words we are not talking about human remains that were salvaged from an accident and used when already dead, but about the deliberate killing of an innocent human, in order to steal his/her organs still full of life and use them for research that would produce a vaccine. That is what you call a criminal act of the utmost gravity, and yet perpetrated with the blessing of the governments of so-called civilised countries. All the vaccines currently available are made using and therefore abusing an innocent baby. It is the ultimate and gravest form of child abuse ever, and it is astounding that anyone could think God will actually bless such crimes by allowing them to save humanity. This stain on the origin of the vaccine remains, whatever might be said about the remoteness of cooperation – which we do not reject as a principle properly understood within the corpus of moral reflection of the Church –, it remains that the application of the principle is dependent upon the evaluation of a given situation. That is to say, a prudential judgment is required in order to come to the conclusion of possible remote cooperation. If one reaches that conclusion, one is not free to impose it on others. If anyone believes those conditions are not met, there is a grave obligation in conscience to refuse. Secondly, leaving aside the unacceptable procedures that were used to produce these vaccines, we are in the presence of a second crime which is that the vaccines have not been properly tested; they are still on trial. This is not a debated point. It is clearly stated on the websites of those who produced them; it is also clearly stated by none less than the Australian Health Minister Greg Hunt who stated just a few months ago as the vaccine was being rolled out: “The world is engaged in the largest clinical trial, the largest global vaccination trial ever”. In other words, the whole world is being treated as an immense laboratory in which you and I are expected to be the Guinea pigs. A third reason is the danger from the vaccine itself. As of 1 September 2021, the TGA (Therapeutic Goods Administration) of the Australian Department of Health affirms on its website that there have been no less than 462 deaths following administration of the Covid19 vaccines. The same Department of Health reports that the number of deaths from Covid19 itself is 1,008. In other words, in the few months since the rollout of the vaccines, the vaccine has killed already half as many people as the virus itself in the last 18 months. These numbers speak for themselves. A fourth reason is that serious caution has been issued by prestigious medical authorities, including Dr. Robert Malone (one of the original developers of mRNA technologies), Dr. Michael Yeadon (former researcher and vice president of Pfizer), Dr. Vladimir Zelenko (who has treated over 6000 Covid patients), and Dr. Luc Montagnier (a Nobel laureate for his discovery of HIV). They all encourage people not to take the vaccine. That alone, for anyone who knows anything about the virtue of prudence and its reliance on docility to people who are eminent for their learning and have everything to lose by saying it, is enough to convince, at the very least, that there is a serious problem. A fifth reason is that there are numerous effective protocols for treating Covid-19 that use accepted, affordable, commonly-available medicines and supplements which have been demonstrated to be safe. One of them was developed over a year ago by Dr Thomas Borody, who is one of our Australian experts, and who wrote at the time: “We have a therapy that can fight COVID-19. The medications have been around for 50 years, they are cheap, FDA and TGA approved and have an outstanding safety profile. Why are we just waiting around for a vaccine? To save lives we should be using whatever is safe and available right now. We could lead the world in this fight…”. One wonders what happened to that protocol. What conclusions are we to draw from all this? Principally, that those of us who refuse the vaccine have solid ground to stand on. But we will need to be strong. The pressure will only increase as time goes by. We will be locked out of many public places; we may even be denied entrance into our own churches; perhaps our own Catholic friends and shepherds will deny us. So be it. But we do have a word for them and this word is for everyone, including authorities, both civil and religious of every rank. It is a strong word. That word is this: Beware. Our conscience stands firm on this issue. If you wish to pressure us, know that you are violating the voice of a well-formed conscience, that is the voice of God Himself. You should also know that international law condemns severely the use of moral persuasion when it comes to that taking of any medication that is experimental. This sort of thing has been done before. It was perpetrated by the same people who put yellow stars on the shoulders of the Jews, and then ultimately decided that they had a better, more final, solution for them. Beware. Whoever you are, whatever badge or religious symbol you might wear, you are crossing a line that you will bitterly regret and for which you will have to give an account.”

3. Consider if all the HEK cell lines were tomorrow contaminated and rendered unsafe for further use. Where tomorrow would the medical scientists go to replenish the cell lines? Because we were complicit in the original HEK lines would this mean that they could then go and help themselves from the same source?

Consider what Archbishop Vigano says on the subject: “It now seems clear to me that we are facing a siege on both the social and religious front. The so-called emergency pandemic has been utilized as a false pretext to impose the vaccination and Green pass in many nations of the world in a simultaneous and coordinated way… They support them in this wicked plan and go so far as to condemn those who do not accept being subjected to inoculation with an experimental gene serum, with unknown side effects, that does not impart any immunity from the virus, to say nothing of the moral implications related to the presence of genetic material derived from aborted fetuses, which for a Catholic is a more than sufficient reason to refuse the vaccine. We are war, a war that is not openly declared, that is not fought with conventional weapons, but a war all the same… The alliance is not between state and church. But it is between the deep state and deep church. Vigano goes on to declare, “The vaccine victims are sacrificed at the altar of Moloch.”

And Archbishop Vigano went on to say the elitists in charge are able to manipulate the vote to their own advantage. “They present themselves as representatives of the people but in fact they act against the people. Without any constraint, without limits either from above, since they have canceled the divine origin of the power of those who govern nor from below, since they do not allow citizens to elect their own representatives unless they are certain can manipulate the vote to their own advantage.”

Opportunity for correction.
Quoting Rev. JL Iannuzzi, STL, S.Th.D
“Now, if a Church leader opposes this conscience within a man that God has placed there, he opposes the voice of God. However, if an ecclesial leader publicly recommends a vaccine to the faithful only to discover later that it is neither safe nor effective and perhaps even harmful, he has a moral obligation to take corrective action, e.g., the issuance of a statement or retraction to the Christian faithful whom God has entrusted to his care. Such corrective action of an ecclesial leader was manifest in the life of Pope Pius XI who banned Padre Pio from receiving large groups of people and from responding to people seeking spiritual direction (1922-1934), from communicating with Padre Benedetto, his spiritual director, from blessing people, from answering letters and from showing his stigmata publicly; and it was manifest in the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office that denied the authenticity of Padre Pio's stigmata and mystical gifts (1924-1931) and ordered him to desist from hearing confessions and from all other activities except the celebration of the “private” Mass (1931-1933). After the truth came out re. the authenticity of Padre Pio’s stigmata and his other extraordinary mystical gifts, the Pope then realized that his informants were wrong, whereby he took corrective action and publicly redressed the restrictions wrongfully imposed upon Padre Pio. Thus Pope Pius XI issued a follow-up statement more than ten years late when the facts came to light. Indeed it was not until 1933 that Pope Pius XI ordered the Sacred Congregation to reverse its ban on Padre Pio’s public celebration of Mass, saying, “I have not been badly disposed toward Padre Pio, but I have been badly informed.”
Servant Of Divine Mercy
One word for the vaccines; SATANIC.
Ok try again Dr Bob.
Dr Bobus
I have a hard time understanding exactly what that question means
Ask Dr. Judy Mikovits, She will tell you the truth unlike Fauci !!!!!!!