Clicks1.3K
en.news
11

I Invite the Bishops Opposing the Use of Covid Vaccines to Retract. By Josef Seifert

The philosopher Josef Seifert has written a postscript to his article on the liceity of the Corona vaccine and the Declaration of the Immorality of getting these vaccines by Riga Cardinal Janis Pujats, retired Archbishops Tomasz Peta and Jan Paweł Lenga, Tyler Bishop Strickland, and Auxiliary Bishop Athanasius Schneider.

I wish to add some words on the deeply moving and magnificent document signed by Bishop Schneider (whom I hold in highest esteem for his prophetic words and mission) and other bishops. This document urges us, under threat of serious sin, to absolutely refuse receiving vaccines that make use of cell-lines derived from aborted babies, because to do so would entail a material cooperation with the evil of abortion and fail to manifest a clear rejection of the terrible crime of abortion.

As I stated in my article, I agree a 100% with all said in this document on the crime of abortion and the need to witness to the truth. I also agreed with their conclusions including the moral wrongness of the vaccine, until I studied Professor de Mattei’s (a world-renowned champion for life) new book The Liceity of the Vaccine.

I do no longer agree with their conclusions that the use of the anti-Corona vaccine is sinful, however, for the following reasons:

1. To use a cell-line developed from a cell in the body of a murdered person is no cannibalism because a cell of his body is not the murdered person, and we do not even eat or use his cell but other cells developed from it. If I am murdered and a medical research team can develop from one of the cells of my body a vaccine, I shall be happy and not think that this has anything to do with cannibalism. Nor does such a good use of a cell from my body imply any approval of the crime to which mankind owes my cell.

2. One cannot cooperate in any way with a past crime formally or materially. Therefore, using this vaccine is no cooperation with abortion at all, also not the remotest material cooperation.

3. God often uses evils to create great goods, which is one sign of his omnipotence. This lies also at the center of divine revelation: God used the adultery and murder committed by King David to give mankind his descendants including Jesus Christ. To accept gratefully this good effect has nothing to do with a lack of rejecting the crime of adultery and murder.

4. God used the greatest of all sins, the murder of Jesus and the betrayal of Judas to give mankind the greatest gift of all gifts: redemption and the sacraments. To accept these gifts has nothing to do with approving the crime of Jesus’ crucifixion.

5. It is incoherent to demand abstaining from this vaccine if we do not abstain from a large number of other vaccines and medications that have been developed from cell-lines of aborted babies and saved millions of human lives; we would demand that countless people die rather than using any of these vaccines that all of us got as children or drugs against high blood pressure and uncounted others.

6. It is impossible for man, and therefore no obligation at all, to abstain from any action that includes a remote material cooperation with evil, such as to buy drugs in a pharmacy that also sells abortifacients (practically all pharmacies do), or to buy a product made in a communist and murderous state such as China with its forced abortion, and millions of other cases. To demand such a radical protest against all evils and a radical stop of any, however remote, material cooperation with them is humanly impossible to fulfill and puts a load on people too heavy for any man to carry.

7. The Magisterial teaching of the CdF and Pope Francis who signed this document, which affirms the moral liceity of using this vaccine is in keeping with documents and decisions taken by Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul II. Thus, to contradict this teaching of the present Magisterium that is in full harmony with previous Church Teaching is to create a kind of counter-magisterium and independent magisterium, which a Catholic should not do nor follow.

8. If this appeal to all men not to use the vaccine, as long as no others are available, may contribute to many deaths, it involves a grave responsibility for many lives lost for an incorrect ethical and religious reasoning.

Therefore, I invite the bishops who issued the moral verdict on the use of the vaccine to retract this statement, and I applaud again Professor de Mattei’s superb book which taught me, through its careful and subtle reflections that are in full harmony with natural and revealed truth that many persons and I can in good conscience receive this vaccine and might even, for the sake of our own and many other lives, have a moral obligation to do so.
atreverse pensar
You are stupid.
If you have to oppose something, oppose Bergoglio's aberrations.
V.R.S.
"If I am murdered and a medical research team can develop from one of the cells of my body a vaccine, I shall be happy..."
---
OK you answer that you'll be happy, sir, but who asked those children? Do you have the right to decide for them? Who gave you such right then?

"is no cannibalism because a cell of his body is not the murdered person"
---
Two cannibals meet in new Cov-normality.
- I've …More
"If I am murdered and a medical research team can develop from one of the cells of my body a vaccine, I shall be happy..."
---
OK you answer that you'll be happy, sir, but who asked those children? Do you have the right to decide for them? Who gave you such right then?

"is no cannibalism because a cell of his body is not the murdered person"
---
Two cannibals meet in new Cov-normality.
- I've heard you ate a missionary - one says.
The other replies: - You're wrong, man. His leg only.

" If this appeal to all men not to use the vaccine, as long as no others are available, may contribute to many deaths.."
-
Oh, it's a two-edged sword: if your appeal to all men to use the experimental vaccine may contribute to many deaths then... you are doomed, sir.
Franek99
Mr Seifert's brother is Lucifer and his father is Satan. I wonder if he would write such a philosophic article if murdered person would be homosexual one instead of murder innocent child.He reminds me about another great "philosopher" Adolf H who justified killing non Aryans for the sake of the purity of his race.
Ultraviolet
You defame Lucifer with the accusation @Franek99 :D He is, if nothing else, is supernaturally clever. This guy's BS is a pack of fallacies and error.
Actually A Catholic
May Mr. Seifert and all those like him repent before it is too late.

This is NOT only about the EXPLOITATION of the corpses of SLAUGHTERED infants.

Which is horrifying in itself.

No.

This is about MURDERING infants that have been DENIED BAPTISM and therefore the BEATIFIC VISION.

We are CREATED TO BE WITH GOD.

Those responsible for this, including Mr. Seifert and his like will answer …
More
May Mr. Seifert and all those like him repent before it is too late.

This is NOT only about the EXPLOITATION of the corpses of SLAUGHTERED infants.

Which is horrifying in itself.

No.

This is about MURDERING infants that have been DENIED BAPTISM and therefore the BEATIFIC VISION.

We are CREATED TO BE WITH GOD.

Those responsible for this, including Mr. Seifert and his like will answer to God AND THOSE INFANTS for denying them the BEATIFIC VISION
Ultraviolet
Re. Point 2: Afro-American activists would bitterly disagree with Seifert's reasoning since they still demand "reparations" for slavery 150+ years ago. . Re. Point 3.: Mr. Seifert ignores the "the fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine wihich is an integral part of Western Law. Re. Point 3. and point 4. What God chooses to do and what man should not do are not automatically the same. That's a …More
Re. Point 2: Afro-American activists would bitterly disagree with Seifert's reasoning since they still demand "reparations" for slavery 150+ years ago. . Re. Point 3.: Mr. Seifert ignores the "the fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine wihich is an integral part of Western Law. Re. Point 3. and point 4. What God chooses to do and what man should not do are not automatically the same. That's a Fallacy of Composition. Re. Point 5: Many did so out of ignorance Re. Point 6. Buying goods at a pharmacy that sells abortifacients is not the same as buying the abortifacients themselves. Likewise, a product made in a country that practices abortion is not a product made directly from the abortion itself. Conflating these is a Slippery Slope Fallacy. Re. Point 7. He's wrong. for the reasons I explained to Louis IX over here. Re. Point 8 Bad faith argument. If the bishops' advice may result in many deaths, where is Mr. Seifert's concern for the pro-vaccine advice that already has resulted in many deaths?

"that are in full harmony with natural and revealed truth that many persons and I can in good conscience receive this vaccine..."

a.) "full harmony with natural and revealed truth"
is a Fallacious appeal to Nature.

b.) "that many persons and I can in good conscience receive this vaccine." is a strongly implied Bandwagon Fallacy.
Liam Ronan
Attorney Christopher Ferrara has written a powerful rebuttal of de Mattei and now Seifert published in Catholic Family News. I recommend all read it thoughtfully.

catholicfamilynews.com/…liceity-a-response-to-professor-de-mattei-part-ii/
123jussi
To make the taking of the vaccine moral it would have to be necessary and it is not!
P N F
The "fetal cells" used to test and/or grow the vaccines belong to the baby who was aborted. Proof of this is that the DNA in each and every one of those cells matches that innocent, aborted child. Cells divide. Old cells die. New cells are created in the "cell line." But all those cells have the same DNA of the original aborted baby.

The body parts of that baby, including every cell thereof, …More
The "fetal cells" used to test and/or grow the vaccines belong to the baby who was aborted. Proof of this is that the DNA in each and every one of those cells matches that innocent, aborted child. Cells divide. Old cells die. New cells are created in the "cell line." But all those cells have the same DNA of the original aborted baby.

The body parts of that baby, including every cell thereof, should have been buried, as required by perennial Catholic teaching. This did not happen. It needs to happen now. Every Catholic must demand this.

Would Prof. Seifert be okay with digging up dead corpses, if some scientist said tomorrow that ground up bones of those corpses could cure cancer? If so, the man is a heretic.

The aborted baby whose cells are used in the development of the vaccine or any "medicine" must be returned to the earth through burial. We have no right to use that child in our quest for physical longevity.
aderito
Mr Josef Seifert catholics are stupid ,we have eyes ,and ears to make ourselves decisions ,Viva Cristo Rey
Eva
An answer to Prof. Seifert from a discussion group including him, "The main problem is that these vaccines are experimental and pose serious doubts concerning their safety to well informed scientists such as Prof. Yeadon. To impose these vaccines, far from being traditional Catholic doctrine, is a violation of the Nuremberg Code, because it is a violation of human dignity. And that is not …More
An answer to Prof. Seifert from a discussion group including him, "The main problem is that these vaccines are experimental and pose serious doubts concerning their safety to well informed scientists such as Prof. Yeadon. To impose these vaccines, far from being traditional Catholic doctrine, is a violation of the Nuremberg Code, because it is a violation of human dignity. And that is not traditional Catholic doctrine, but a big confusion."