Covidiot News - Muddled Vatican Promulgates a Lie Then Dismisses it Anyway

Pope Francis. Conversion to 'situational ethics'.

Bishops issue updated statement on COVID-19 and vaccination - Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales

The Catholic Church has succeeded in getting itself into a proper muddle over the Covid-19 vaccination.

On the one hand, it is promulgating a lie - that the vaccine is derived from the cells of aborted foetuses - and on the other hand, having raised that thought in the minds of its followers, it now says that 'fact' doesn't prohibit them from receiving the vaccine, even though previous vaccines have been prohibited on just those grounds.

Meanwhile, in the face of the stunning success of medical science in producing the vaccines in record-breaking time by a fantastic cooperative effort, while many Christian Churches appeared to be obstructing efforts to minimise the deadly effects of the pandemic by opposing social distancing measures and wearing face-masks, and defying the lockdown rules to holding super-spreader events, Pope Francis appears to be setting the scene for claiming the credit for the end of the pandemic, by casting magic spells.

And, Pope Francis has still not offered any explanation for why his god inflicted the pandemic on us in the first place. Perhaps's God is keeping it a secret - one of his famous myterious ways.

The lie that the vaccines are the products of the cells of aborted foetuses had been repeated multiple time in a statement by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. However, in a remarkably flexible approach to moral absolutes, the statement basically argues that the 'sin' was all a long time ago anyway and there is a greater good being served by ignoring it:

The question of the use of vaccines, in general, is often at the center of controversy in the forum of public opinion. In recent months, this Congregation has received several requests for guidance regarding the use of vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19, which, in the course of research and production, employed cell lines drawn from tissue obtained from two abortions that occurred in the last century. At the same time, diverse and sometimes conflicting pronouncements in the mass media by bishops, Catholic associations, and experts have raised questions about the morality of the use of these vaccines.

[...]

Since the first vaccines against Covid-19 are already available for distribution and administration in various countries, this Congregation desires to offer some indications for clarification of this matter. We do not intend to judge the safety and efficacy of these vaccines, although ethically relevant and necessary, as this evaluation is the responsibility of biomedical researchers and drug agencies. 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.

1. As the Instruction Dignitas Personae states, in cases where cells from aborted fetuses are employed to create cell lines for use in scientific research, “there exist differing degrees of responsibility”[1] of cooperation in evil. For example,“in organizations where cell lines of illicit origin are being utilized, the responsibility of those who make the decision to use them is not the same as that of those who have no voice in such a decision”.[2]
2. In this sense, when ethically irreproachable Covid-19 vaccines are not available (e.g. in countries where vaccines without ethical problems are not made available to physicians and patients, or where their distribution is more difficult due to special storage and transport conditions, or when various types of vaccines are distributed in the same country but health authorities do not allow citizens to choose the vaccine with which to be inoculated) it is morally acceptable to receive Covid-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses in their research and production process.
3. The fundamental reason for considering the use of these vaccines morally licit is that the kind of cooperation in evil (passive material cooperation) in the procured abortion from which these cell lines originate is, on the part of those making use of the resulting vaccines, remote. The moral duty to avoid such passive material cooperation is not obligatory if there is a grave danger, such as the otherwise uncontainable spread of a serious pathological agent[3]--in this case, the pandemic spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19. It must therefore be considered that, in such a case, 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. It should be emphasized, however, that the morally licit use of these types of vaccines, in the particular conditions that make it so, does not in itself constitute a legitimation, even indirect, of the practice of abortion, and necessarily assumes the opposition to this practice by those who make use of these vaccines.
4. In fact, the licit use of such vaccines does not and should not in any way imply that there is a moral endorsement of the use of cell lines proceeding from aborted fetuses.[4] Both pharmaceutical companies and governmental health agencies are therefore encouraged to produce, approve, distribute and offer ethically acceptable vaccines that do not create problems of conscience for either health care providers or the people to be vaccinated.
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.
6. Finally, there is also a moral imperative for the pharmaceutical industry, governments and international organizations to ensure that vaccines, which are effective and safe from a medical point of view, as well as ethically acceptable, are also accessible to the poorest countries in a manner that is not costly for them. The lack of access to vaccines, otherwise, would become another sign of discrimination and injustice that condemns poor countries to continue living in health, economic and social poverty.[5]

[My emphasis]

In fact, neither the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine nor the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine are derived from stem cell cultures derived from aborted foetuses or anywhere else. They are based on synthetic mRNA copies of the section of the SARS-CoV-2 virus RNA that codes for the spike proteins on the outer coat of the virus which are an integral part of its mechanism for gaining entry into the host cells. This synthetic mRNA is read by the cell's own internal protein-production mechanism which them produces these spike proteins. These are then recognised as foreign and the immune system creates antibodies to counter them and destroy them. If infection by the SARS-CoV-2 virus then occurs, the immune system is primed to attack and neutralise the viruses by attacking the spike proteins.

The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine delivers the mRNA in nanodroplets of oil; the Oxford/AstraZenaca vaccine delivers it in the shell of a harmless modified chimpanzee adenovirus which insert it into the muscle cells at the injection site but is unable to reproduce itself.

Presumably, now the Vatican has discovered the value of situational ethics, where a 'sin' can be disregarded if there is a greater good to be served by ignoring it, then they will soon discover they have no objection to effective family planning services where the greater good is in the health and welfare of a woman and her family, increased prosperity, better nutrition and the freedom of a woman to pursue a career without the burden of constant pregnancies and children to look after, if she so wishes, and in society and the environment as a whole from a reduction is population due to smaller family sizes.

Some of the countries being worst affected by the coronavirus pandemic are predominantly Catholic countries such as Brazil, and the Philippines where the conditions of poverty and over-crowding make ideal breeding grounds for the virus.

---

Tweet Link