Montfort AJPM

Women Doctors, Pro-Life Activists Issue Appeal to Resist Abortion-Tainted Vaccines - Edward Pentin

A group of nearly 100 women doctors, religious, politicians and pro-life activists from around the world have issued a heartfelt appeal to all peopl…
Ultraviolet
The CDF also wrote, “vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary.” @Cuthbert Mayne That is also now part of the Magisterium. Ironically, the very CDF document you're championing as the Church's Magisterium, also deals an unexpected death blow to these vaccines in paricular.

The CDF stated, "all vaccinations recognized as clinically safe and …More
The CDF also wrote, “vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary.” @Cuthbert Mayne That is also now part of the Magisterium. Ironically, the very CDF document you're championing as the Church's Magisterium, also deals an unexpected death blow to these vaccines in paricular.

The CDF stated, "all vaccinations recognized as clinically safe and effective can be used in good conscience with the certain knowledge that the use of such vaccines does not constitute formal cooperation with the abortion from which the cells used in production of the vaccines derive."

I call your attention to the clause, "all vaccinations recognzied as clinically safe and effective..." Recognized? Recognized by whom? These vaccines are NOT "recognized as clinically safe and effective...". In fact, many reputable scientists are claiming just the opposite. Further, several countries in Europe have suspended vaccination in part or entirely in light of the staggering number of deaths and disabilities that keep occurring directly after administration.

So this isn't simply a few "anti-vaccine" naysayers refusing to accept the august and unimpeachable consensus of the scientific community who, quite coincidentally, were the same culprits responsible for rushing these vaccines through testing and who continue to blithely ignore the obvious results of having done so.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated it does not "“intend to judge the safety and efficacy" of current vaccines against Covid-19 but it HAS set down a requirement that such vaccines must be "recognized as clinically safe and effective".

Therefore the CDF has, intentionally or otherwise, included a safety standard to be met for these abortion-tainted vaccines to be, "morally acceptable".

Since these vaccines clearly do not meet that standard of safety stipulated by the CDF, (as evidenced by the EU nations cancelling the "vaccine rollout,") then consequently they are neither "morally acceptable" nor justified by the Magisterium of the Church.
Cuthbert Mayne
No one should be forced or coerced to take a vaccine or any treatment. I have had adult Jeohova’s witness patients, with mental capacity to decide, under my care, die of refusing blood transfusions. I have never been in favour of lockdowns, masks and shutting down churches. I wrote to my Cardinal Archbishop to make that latter point. However, there’s no doubt there’s a deadly disease making its …More
No one should be forced or coerced to take a vaccine or any treatment. I have had adult Jeohova’s witness patients, with mental capacity to decide, under my care, die of refusing blood transfusions. I have never been in favour of lockdowns, masks and shutting down churches. I wrote to my Cardinal Archbishop to make that latter point. However, there’s no doubt there’s a deadly disease making its rounds. And despite all what the lunatic fringe ‘medical experts’ say... there are NO treatment options for any viral infections. Including Covid-19.
The best we could do is support a patient’s immune system, and buy time with supporting other bodily functions such as kidney, heart and breathing.
The only option to stop this virus spreading is either via natural immunity ( people catching the virus and falling ill and recovering) or by immunisation.
Any vaccines will have side effects. Some patients may have significant reactions and die. But the numbers are as expected, and not more with such a mass vaccination program. Of course there are plenty of people who lie about their reactions. Currently all of the vaccines in use against covid-19 are tainted by abortion derived cells. Many of the other childhood vaccines in use are too. But without these, there’d be more deaths.
bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n506
Cuthbert Mayne
The CDF document is very clear. And there’s no irony.

“Here, our objective is only to consider the moral aspects of the use of the vaccines against Covid-19 that have been developed from cell lines derived from tissues obtained from two fetuses that were not spontaneously aborted.”

It’s not making any comment regarding the safety of vaccines ( which the CDF is incapable of at present, given …More
The CDF document is very clear. And there’s no irony.

“Here, our objective is only to consider the moral aspects of the use of the vaccines against Covid-19 that have been developed from cell lines derived from tissues obtained from two fetuses that were not spontaneously aborted.”

It’s not making any comment regarding the safety of vaccines ( which the CDF is incapable of at present, given the lack of data )

vatican.va/…nota-vaccini-anticovid_en.html

It is also worthwhile (and honest), to quote the CDF document fully.

5. At the same time, practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary. In any case, from the ethical point of view, the morality of vaccination depends not only on the duty to protect one's own health, but also on the duty to pursue the common good. In the absence of other means to stop or even prevent the epidemic, the common good may recommend vaccination, especially to protect the weakest and most exposed. Those who, however, for reasons of conscience, refuse vaccines produced with cell lines from aborted fetuses, must do their utmost to avoid, by other prophylactic means and appropriate behavior, becoming vehicles for the transmission of the infectious agent. In particular, they must avoid any risk to the health of those who cannot be vaccinated for medical or other reasons, and who are the most vulnerable.
Ultraviolet
I'm going to separate my reply according to your responses.

"No one should be forced or coerced to take a vaccine or any treatment."

I fully agree and your acknowledgement of this immediately leads us right back to the CDF. The CDF insists vaccination must be voluntary, you and I both concur vaccination must be voluntary and this indirectly renders their ruling on the use of aborted fetuses…More
I'm going to separate my reply according to your responses.

"No one should be forced or coerced to take a vaccine or any treatment."

I fully agree and your acknowledgement of this immediately leads us right back to the CDF. The CDF insists vaccination must be voluntary, you and I both concur vaccination must be voluntary and this indirectly renders their ruling on the use of aborted fetuses a non-issue.

On one hand, the CDF claims "the use of such vaccines does not constitute formal cooperation" with abortion. In the same document, they reaffirm that vaccination must be voluntary. Well! That solves the dilemma nicely! If a Catholic refuses to accept a particular vaccine -for whatever reason- the CDF and, thus, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church reaffirms their right to do so. At that point, their reasons for refusal are entirely irrelevant.

"I have had adult Jeohova’s witness patients, with mental capacity to decide, under my care, die of refusing blood transfusions."

You and I and the "regulars" on GTV are almost certainly not Jehovah's Witnesses. We Catholics do not follow their teachings. Likewise, the subject being discussed is vaccines, not blood transfusions. In particular we're discussing one type of COVID vaccine (since there are others) that's made from the cells of murdered infants. I like you Cuthbert and it's Sunday, so I'm going to very charitably abstain from my usual "Your Fallacy Is" infographics. If I were to post one it would be for the fallacy "Red Herring".

"I have never been in favour of lockdowns, masks and shutting down churches. I wrote to my Cardinal Archbishop to make that latter point."

See my last point above.

"However, there’s no doubt there’s a deadly disease making its rounds."

Its "deadliness" has been far exaggerated, the percentage recovery rate is in the very high nineties -as evidenced by the very low single (or less) percentage rate of fatalities.

That's allowing for the fact there have been numerous articles posted here on GTV exposing how fatalites are being, it would seem, deliberately miscounted and inflated. Not all that hard to find evidence of it elsewhere as well. Shades, I'm sorry to say, of the last US Presidential Election. Adding to this misperception, is the selective focus by the media on what are already inflated figures. The two reinforce each other and build the hysteria.

Allow me to give you an entirely American example. As I'm sure you've seen in the world press, every once in awhile some lunatic takes a firearm and goes on a shooting rampage. The media, always on the side of "Big Government" and thus a disarmed powerless citizenry reports on such incidents extensively. All the while, calling for further controls on the ownership of firearms.

Yet every day, according to the American Center for Disease Control, 21 people die as the direct result of an alcohol-impaired driver. It's the equivalent of having such a "shooting rampage" every single day of the year. Yet, mysteriously, the media doesn't focus on that. There are no calls for banning cars or banning alcohol. No demands for background checks and waiting periods before a person can order a drink or buy a bottle. The media ignores the issue entirely, because it doesn't further a specific agenda and so it isn't an issue in the public's consciousness.

There have been similar flu outbreaks in the past even one, ironically named, "the Asian flu". What sets this one apart is how the governments and the media, acting in partnership, have weaponized their response to it in order to literally change the course of history and to erase many basic freedoms indefinitely... including, as we've seen, the freedom to practice our faith.

"But the numbers are as expected, and not more with such a mass vaccination program."

To borrow a phrase... "Let’s see some hard data on your phantasmical claims" Particularly statistics backing the claim "the numbers are as expected" which means the medical community knew in advance and expected so many people would die that several countries have now stopped their vaccination programs.

Good luck with that, mate. ;-)

At this point, finding "hard data" as you put it elsewhere, becomes difficult thanks to the obvious politicization of the medical community on this issue. The agenda is controlling the numbers, not accurate scientific reporting.

"Covid related" is being added to death certificates, to include causes of death where deceased didn't die of Covid. From the article I linked above...

"in the UK at least, anyone who has had a positive Covid test and who then died – from any illness – would be recorded as a coronavirus-related death. No matter when they die.

This means that someone could have tested positive in March, with no symptoms of Covid at all, and who then died in July, would be recorded in the official figures, as having died of Covid-related causes. Even if they were hit by a bus."


This is how the medical community lies with statistics to further an agenda. ;-)

Conversely, every person who dies or miscarries or becomes seriously disabled after the Covid vaccination isn't listed under "Covid vaccine related". Fancy that. Those are just coincidences, yes?. All of 'em.

No, the numbers are not as expected at all.

"Of course there are plenty of people who lie about their reactions."

No evidence supplied except your say so.

Ironic you're willing to assume people lie about their reactions without questioning if medical community doesn't lie when they're over-reporting Covid "related" fatalities and simultaneously under reporting Covid vacccine "related" fatalities. Unlike your claim, there's evidence supporting both accusations.
Ultraviolet
"The CDF document is very clear. And there’s no irony."

Oh, but there is. :D According to the CDF (and thus the Magisterium of the Church), "all vaccinations recognized as clinically safe and effective can be used in good conscience"

If multiple countries in Europe are cancelling their vaccination programs due to the number of deaths and those euphemistically described "side effects" then …More
"The CDF document is very clear. And there’s no irony."

Oh, but there is. :D According to the CDF (and thus the Magisterium of the Church), "all vaccinations recognized as clinically safe and effective can be used in good conscience"

If multiple countries in Europe are cancelling their vaccination programs due to the number of deaths and those euphemistically described "side effects" then the vaccines are not "clinically safe". It's equally fair to question how "effective" a vaccine is when the narrative has, again, shifted from not a vaccine treatment but a requirement for multiple doses. Evidently, a vaccine isn't very effective at all. Hence, the need for more (and more and more) "jabs".

"It’s not making any comment regarding the safety of vaccines"

That's not true, Cuthbert. I already quoted where the CDF did so. I will quote it again since you're choosing to ignore the passage.

"all vaccinations recognized as clinically safe and effective can be used in good conscience with the certain knowledge that the use of such vaccines does not constitute formal cooperation with the abortion from which the cells used in production of the vaccines derive."

The CDF did NOT say "all vaccines can be used in good conscience..." The CDF DID say, "all vaccinations recognized as clinically safe and effective can be used in good conscience..."

That is ineed a comment regarding the safety of vaccines. The CDF set forth a standard. A vaccine must be "recognized as clinically safe and effective" in order for CDF's decision to apply. These new Covid vaccines are neither clinically safe nor effective. Evidently, a number of governments, and the medical communities advising them, have already recognized this.

"( which the CDF is incapable of at present, given the lack of data )"

Funny how there's already sufficient data available for over half a dozen countries to recognize that people just happen to keep dropping dead shortly after being vaccinated. Seems there's plenty of data available, you're just choosing to ignore it as you just did with the CDF's own statement. ;-)

I'm glad you bolded a passage from the CDF. I'm going to re-post the last sentence.

" In the absence of other means to stop or even prevent the epidemic, the common good may recommend vaccination,"

First, there are other means. You said so yourself and I'll quote you verbatim: "either via natural immunity ( people catching the virus and falling ill and recovering) or by immunisation."

The CDF, however, said "in the absence of other means..." and you have shown other means do exist. Once again, the CDF introduced a proviso that eliminates requiring vaccination. It's also vital to note the CDF did NOT say "the common good must implement vaccination". Instead the CDF said "the common good may recommend vaccination."

Such disctinctions are critical, "may" also allows for may not. Likwise, "recommend" is not "order" nor "mandate" A recommendation is a suggestion, not a carte blanche for mandatory vaccinations and "vaccine-passes" or anything else of the sort.

The CDF has been, with a traditionally fine and entirely Catholic legalism, very precise on what they've added to the Magisterium and none of it justifies what's being inflicted on people today.
Cuthbert Mayne
Sorry TLDR
Ultraviolet
...meaning, of course, a book won't be much use in helping you here. :D
Cuthbert Mayne
The Catholic Church congregation for the doctrine of faith has issued a declaration saying that to accept the covid vaccines is not sinful. At which point do Catholics accept magisterium? And at which do we discard such teaching? If we pick and choose what to accept aren’t we then Protestant?
Wayside Shrine Maker
Everything the Vatican says is not part of the Magisterium.
Cuthbert Mayne
If it says the number 17 bus service from termini is hopeless, then no, that’s not magesterium. But if the congregation for the doctrine of faith produces a document on faith and morals, then you either accept it or go your own way.