It is important that you read the posts from yesterday and the day before to come up to speed on this post. So, the website of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has a carefully nuanced, but very strong, statement on the use fetal cells from elective abortions and on vaccination of your children. It is an excellent statement, as well as being an excellent example of how to do moral theology.
First, let me make a very strong point. The statement from the USCCB speaks ONLY about fetal cells from an induced abortion. There is neither mention nor moral disapproval of the use of fetal cells from any other source, such as a miscarriage or a spontaneous abortion or intra-uterine surgery, or, or, or . . . . Some of the pro-birth websites make it sound as though the use of any fetal cells is somehow morally wrong. We need to be very clear that the use of voluntarily donated human tissues is moral. Human cells of any type are not, in and of themselves, immoral. Yet, some of the pro-birth sites list vaccines from fetal tissue without differentiating between cells from an induced abortion and fetal cells from other sources. Let me repeat, the issue is how the human tissues are acquired, not what type of cells they are, and that is how the USCCB statement reads. In passing, it would be equally as wrong to transplant a stolen kidney
Thus, the statement strongly condemns the use of fetal tissue from induced abortions for “vaccine development or other research.” Yet, look at the reason that is given:
Such use tends to legitimize abortion as a source of “life-affirming” treatments, and requires collaboration with the abortion industry, which should be avoided.
Remember that I talked about the researchers from the 1950’s two posts ago? There is a small fine point being hinted at in this statement, but an important one. The researchers today are all too often intent in getting tissues from fetuses regardless of their provenance. Quite a few of them are even willing to make a “life-affirming” argument in order to continue getting the “raw material” for their researches. They are directly and personally involved in the abortion industry. In fact, their good desire to find solutions to some very serious medical problems gave the opening for their moral sense to be corrupted. Sometimes there is no person so easy to deceive as the one who is convinced that they are serving a greater moral good.
But, what about the researchers from the 1950’s? The researchers from the 1950’s had demonstrably no tie to the abortion industry because there was no modern abortion industry at that time. Only some abortions were legal in some states. There is no evidence that they either approved or disapproved of abortion. It was not an issue. Another way to say it, is that they only had casual contact with abortion. Thus the personal and active involvement with abortion necessary for sin to be declared is not present. We need to avoid the tendency to declare things immoral based on the argument that something is related to something that is related to something else, therefore the something must be immoral.
In fact, many Quakers made that type of argument in relation to the Viet Nam war back when. They said that the Viet Nam conflict was immoral. Ten percent of the defense budget of the United States was being spent in Viet Nam. A Christian cannot support something that is immoral. If a Christian pays his taxes then he/she is helping pay for the killing in Viet Nam. Therefore a Christian who fully pays his/her taxes is an accessory to unjust killing. Therefore, a true Christian must refuse to pay 10% of their taxes in order to remain morally clean. Many Quakers put 10% of the tax they owed the national government into escrow accounts and engaged in acts of war tax resistance.
Of course, that argument did not cut it. Many conservative Christians argued against it. The courts ruled against it. Finally, the Quaker-led tax resistance movement collapsed. But, arguments with exactly the same framework as the above have been used nowadays. If something can be even indirectly linked to abortion, suddenly it become immoral and tantamount to being an accessory to murder to have anything to do with it. But, the USCCB does not buy that type of argumentation. Let’s look tomorrow at the second point in their statement.
===MORE TO COME===
This reminds me of the times I have gone to Confession and the priest has told me, “I haven’t heard you confess any sins.” But…but! Nope, not everything is a sin. Using donated tissue for research isn’t a sin, even if it is fetal tissue. It is the intentional act of killing a fetus which is a sin. Very interesting. Thank you for clarifying this.