Okay, but what about the second part of the bishop’s statement? (If this is your first time here, you need to dial back to the 26th of April and begin reading forwards to this day. Many in the pro-birth movement have taken the attitude that if the vaccine is made from fetal cells from an induced abortion, then a truly pro-birth person may not receive that vaccine because they participate in the evils of the abortion industry. But, is that what the bishops say? NO, they say something quite different.
2. If such collaboration with abortion has already taken place, and the only vaccine made available for serious diseases contains material that was cultured in fetal tissue from an abortion, may Catholics — out of concern for their own health or that of their children or the community – submit to this vaccine without committing serious sin? Most Catholic moralists have replied in the affirmative. The recipient of the vaccine took no part in decisions to base the vaccine on this morally unacceptable source, but is coping with the results of immoral decisions made by others.
The bishops say that there is no sin if you either receive the vaccine or give your child the vaccine. But, it is important to look at the reasons that are given because they help us with our view of how to do moral theology.
- The vaccines that are cited are vaccines for “serious diseases.” Note that vaccines for non-serious diseases are not cited. This is important, because now evil results for aborted children are pitted against evil results for living children and the community.
- A concern for your children, for your community, and for yourself are legitimate moral concerns. A pro-life stance also needs to extend to those who are now living, and, in certain limited cases, concern for the living may take priority. It is probably an equally morally repugnant act to place both your children and society in danger of dangerous epidemics. By the way, do some Googling, and you will find that we have already had outbreaks of controllable diseases that have killed some unvaccinated people. So, this is not a far away concern.
- Finally, casual contact with abortion does not constitute a sin. This point was made yesterday. Look at what it says above, “The recipient of the vaccine took no part in decisions to base the vaccine on this morally unacceptable source, but is coping with the results of immoral decisions made by others.” With this statement, the “connection” arguments made by so many are thrown away. You cannot declare someone to be in sin simply because you can connect them with something that is connected with something that is connected with an abortion. To say someone is sinning because they received a vaccine made from a fetal cell culture that was acquired by the company from cells collected by scientists 60 years ago from an induced abortion is too many steps to call it a sin. The sin is ONLY on those who made some of the original decisions. That is, one has to be personally and actively involved in the sin, not merely casually connected to it.
In passing, if you look at the reasoning of the bishops, it means that their conceptual structure for moral reasoning is hierarchical. You may not be aware that ethics can have any of several philosophical structures underlying them. They can be absolute, hierarchical, or situational. Many conservative Christians in the USA may not know it, but their morality is based on an absolute model. Many liberal Christians may not know it, but their morality is based on situational ethics. [Actually, I am more and more convinced that most Christians in the USA have an unhealthy dose of situational ethics in their makeup.] But, there is also a third group of Christians whose ethics are based on a hierarchical model. What does this mean?
===MORE TO COME===
Leave a Reply