Clicks511
en.news
17

Are the Covid-19 Vaccines Immoral? By Dr Geoffrey Brushwood

Prevention is always better than cure. In the case of Covid-19, it is especially important that the elderly with no reserves, and risk groups with deeper problems should be protected.

There are quite a few nursing homes in my area where the infection has run rampant. In one with 42 residents, 16 died in quick succession.

There are many remedies presented against a Covid infection, none of these work without a robust immune system.

The best help, a seriously ill patient could have, is plasma containing antibodies extracted from a patient who defeated Covid-19.

The best possible prophylaxis is a vaccine. There are plenty of arguments about the morality of vaccine development using tissue taken from aborted children, however, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has stated that cooperation with evil is "not proximate" in this case.

I can understand why there are Catholics who don’t trust the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith anymore, or any moral arguments favoured by Francis et.al.

Therefore, let us look at the moral principle of legitimate cooperation with evil. Legitimate cooperation with evil means working together despite disagreement about the ends or means of an act. It doesn’t mean condoning the evil.

If we were to try to avoid any and all cooperation with evil we would be unable to act. Sometimes evil is unavoidable.

When performing an action that is intertwined with evil, one can use the following criteria to judge whether cooperation with evil is legitimate (= morally acceptable):

• The moral object of an action (= its objective goal) is good and you are operating out of good intentions (= the reasons why you choose to act).

• The evil is only tolerated as a side effect of an action.

• Cooperation is only material (= the evil means are indirectly chosen, and cooperation doesn’t contribute to the perpetuation of the evil), not formal (= the evil means are directly chosen).

• Cooperation is not proximate but remote (= doesn’t contribute to the evil action). So, it causes minimal evil effects.

• Cooperation with evil doesn't cause scandal (= tempt others to sin).

In the absence of a vaccine that has not been tainted with the use of a dead baby’s tissue, we perhaps ought to remind ourselves of the inscription written above the entrance of the ancient anatomy room at the University of Bologna: ‘Hic locus est ubi mors gaudet succurrere vitae’ - "This is the place where death delights to help the living.”

Picture: Province of British Columbia, Creative Commons, CC-BY-NC-ND
jamacor
Dr Bobus
1. Anyone who receives the vaccine is not cooperating with the act but rather with the effect.

2. Sadly, there are so many abortions every year (700,000+ in the US) that whatever tissue is used has no effect on the number of abortions. The vaccine is in no way a cause of the abortions.

3. Thus, the material cooperation is passive.
Franek99
It does not matter in what kind of cooperation we are involved. Evil is always evil and noone should take this diabolical vaccines unless they will have a "clean" one. Veritatis Splendor by John Paul II is very clear:
Hence human activity cannot be judged as morally good merely because it is a means for attaining one or another of its goals, or simply because the subject's intention is good.122More
It does not matter in what kind of cooperation we are involved. Evil is always evil and noone should take this diabolical vaccines unless they will have a "clean" one. Veritatis Splendor by John Paul II is very clear:
Hence human activity cannot be judged as morally good merely because it is a means for attaining one or another of its goals, or simply because the subject's intention is good.122 Activity is morally good when it attests to and expresses the voluntary ordering of the person to his ultimate end and the conformity of a concrete action with the human good as it is acknowledged in its truth by reason. If the object of the concrete action is not in harmony with the true good of the person, the choice of that action makes our will and ourselves morally evil, thus putting us in conflict with our ultimate end, the supreme good, God himself.
Dr Bobus
You're saying that the distinction between formal and material cooperation is worthless.

The text from Veritatis Splendor applies to the abortion, which is malum intrinsecum
HerzMariae
Just look at the headlines.
Kevin
This seems like sophistry. Read 1756 and the 'In Brief' section at the end of this link in the Catechism:- vatican.va/…archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts …More
This seems like sophistry. Read 1756 and the 'In Brief' section at the end of this link in the Catechism:- vatican.va/…archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.
IN BRIEF

1757
The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the three "sources" of the morality of human acts.
1758 The object chosen morally specifies the act of willing accordingly as reason recognizes and judges it good or evil.
1759 "An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention" (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.
1760
A morally good act requires the goodness of its object, of its end, and of its circumstances together.
1761 There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.
Dr Bobus
In so far as this concerns material cooperation, intention is not relevant. If it were, it would be formal cooperation.
LionsOnTheBeach
These moral considerations are true, but incomplete. The good object still must be weighed against the evil with which one would cooperate.
Dr Bobus
This is not a question of the Double Effect.
Jungerheld
So...let those who "need" it receive the vaccine created with the benefit of a baby whose life was violently ended at the direct request of his/her mother and let everyone seek, promote, support vaccines that are developed with moral methods.
Dr Bobus
If a man is murdered, would it be ethical to transplant any of his organs, including bones?
V.R.S.
@Dr Bobus
It would not be ethical unless he consented.
Dr Bobus
Consented to the murder?
Jungerheld
The point (rather, "segway") I am presenting is, make the important points that Catholics need to understand. God help us for terrorizing people who are high risk and terrorized with fear that they should not accept a vaccine. But don't get consumed in arguments alone. Somewhere in this debate of "thou shalt not" we seem to be ignoring our responsibility to find and promote moral alternatives. …More
The point (rather, "segway") I am presenting is, make the important points that Catholics need to understand. God help us for terrorizing people who are high risk and terrorized with fear that they should not accept a vaccine. But don't get consumed in arguments alone. Somewhere in this debate of "thou shalt not" we seem to be ignoring our responsibility to find and promote moral alternatives. Should we not need to bother?
Our Lady of Sorrows
"There is good scientific data showing that the risk of dying from COVID-19 is directly comparable to seasonal Influenza in most age groups and significantly lower than influenza in children.None of the COVID-19 vaccines have completed their Phase 3 trials so are still essentially experimental. Vaccine Companies have no liability for injuries/death.
There has never been a coronavirus vaccine befo…More
"There is good scientific data showing that the risk of dying from COVID-19 is directly comparable to seasonal Influenza in most age groups and significantly lower than influenza in children.None of the COVID-19 vaccines have completed their Phase 3 trials so are still essentially experimental. Vaccine Companies have no liability for injuries/death.
There has never been a coronavirus vaccine before.
A vaccine takes on average 10 years from concept to market.
COVID-19 vaccines have been trialled for less than a year and many are using
completely new technologies (mRNA vaccines). There is limited short-term safetydata and NO long-term safety data available on any of the Covid-19 vaccines.
Late-onset adverse effects may take many months or years to become apparent
e.g. autoimmune disease, cancers or infertility."
ukmedfreedom.org/about
lelkihaz
So ignorants are you all! You don't paint the wall with these aborted baby cell lines! You take them in your body andbin your blood. In your blood which is xour body's life crxing on the sky the cells of killed, unborned people. Are you sure you want this curse in your body? Think twice...
Cuthbert Mayne
@ our lady of sorrows. Please quote the good deal of data comparing covid 19 to seasonal influenza. How do they explain the excess number of deaths ?

Oxford vaccine has completed all of the required trials. I cannot objectively comment on the other vaccines

The seasonal flu vaccine IS a coronavirus vaccine. Therefore they exist

In ordinary times a vaccine production can be prolonged due to …More
@ our lady of sorrows. Please quote the good deal of data comparing covid 19 to seasonal influenza. How do they explain the excess number of deaths ?

Oxford vaccine has completed all of the required trials. I cannot objectively comment on the other vaccines

The seasonal flu vaccine IS a coronavirus vaccine. Therefore they exist

In ordinary times a vaccine production can be prolonged due to bureaucratic red tape - which were overcome in the Oxford vaccine with government help. Which did not mean cutting corners but mandatory delays were removed. Trials of the vaccine however were as stringent if not more in the Oxford vaccine. Meanwhile Astra Zeneca company took a gamble and started production despite the trials still ongoing. This avoided further delay at end of trials.

The Oxford vaccine uses standard vaccine manufacturing technology, which means taking a small part of the sars-cov2 virus to stimulate the immune system. The Pfizer moderna vaccine uses a segment of mRNA from the virus. And it is novel vaccine technique. However not to be mistrusted on a whim.

It’s important to comment on matters intelligently and within one’s competence. There’s no use pretending to be an ‘expert’ and particularly important to string an intelligible sentence together too.