Life at the Cost of Death:
the Tainted Covid-19 Vaccines
Catechism of the Catholic Church:
“One
may not do evil so that good may result from it.” (CCC 1761)
Vatican (Jorge
and Friends):
There
are: “differing degrees of responsibility of cooperation in evil.”
Today, Jorge’s (Francis’s) response to the growing concern of the
vaccines’ use of stem cells from human fetal tissue 1 is
all the more barbaric and absurd:
“why
not take it?”,
he casually asked. That a third-grader could answer this,
understanding the context, borders not on absurdity but insanity:
“because
an innocent baby was killed to get it!”.
That Jorge is no theologian is a given; but that he lacks the
intellectual perspicacity of an 8-year-old
is truly astounding. And frightening — because he then went on to
urge its universal use as an ethical imperative!
Indeed, he went so far as to demand that “it
must be done.”
Morality
apart, could he have asked a more incredulous question
given the many, many, unanswered questions and unanticipated
side-effects concerning the proffered vaccine that has already
killed some in the taking?
Since
when
were we allowed by God and Holy Mother Church to have
ANY responsibility
in evil, much less to “cooperate”
with evil in any way and to any degree?!
Saint Paul himself condemns this evil sophistry thus:
“we are slandered … as
some affirm that we say, “let us do evil, that there may come good.”
[And their] damnation is just.”
(Romans 3.8)
KINDA DEAD
To say that “One
may not do evil so that good may result from it” — period! — in no way
invokes, or even admits of, any specious notion of
“degree”.
It is much like saying that the person
one killed is either dead — or is not. There is no middle way.
There are no
“differing degrees” of death and being dead.
This is formally called “casuistry” — the use of sophistical reasoning,
the appeal to equivocal, deliberately abstruse, and oversubtle principles
or reasoning to justify what is manifestly wrong — in this case, evil.
It is aptly described as “Jesuitical casuistry” (Jorge is a Jesuit)
— addressing moral issues not by appealing to indefeasible precepts,
but to isolated instances abstracted from any moral principles to the
end of either attenuating them or abrogating them altogether. In other
words, it is simply another tiresome iteration of the bankrupt notion
of “situation ethics”: there are no absolutes and no moral precept is
immutable.
We are called in no uncertain terms
to
be good —
not evil. To
do good —
not evil. Always. Everywhere. At all times.
In fact, Christ tells us that we must be
perfect even
as His Heavenly Father is perfect. (Saint Matthew 5.48)
Christ never said that you are to be good
“only insofar as …”
— or that it is
“morally legitimate”
to be complicit in evil
“to a certain degree”.
Neither has the Church ... only her increasingly evil “princes”.
That is the casuistry of the World, the Jesuits, and the Evil One.
A few babies, we are told, were murdered 60 years ago — but somehow “parts” of their
tissues were … inadvertently, mind you … kept. Not for “research”, you
understand … they were just — somehow — conveniently stored for no reason
at all! What is more, they were “somehow” kept in a viable state for
over half a century — by “scientists”, “biologists”, and “physicians”,
no less! What a remarkable coincidence that they were serendipitously
“just found” — and quite suddenly and unexpectedly became “useful”!
We are amazed at this concatenation of totally unanticipated and otherwise
unrelated series of events! More amazing still is that such evil does
indeed have pe-DEGREE:
Unit 71 of the
Handbook on Moral Sophistry
Remarkably,
it is not, however, important now (you will soon see why I emphasize
“now”) that a baby was killed and its organs “harvested” — after all,
the murder happened 60 years ago — so it’s okay. As the years go by,
we are to understand, culpability is commensurably diminished with time
until culpability no longer exists — despite the parts remaining. Oh,
yes, in the present case they are only “little parts” — so that somehow
makes the crime “little”, too.
The crime, we are implicitly given to understand, is only commensurable
to tissue size and weight. The mitral valve in your heart is small,
about a half-inch to just under an inch. According to this reasoning,
then, a lung that measures roughly 10 inches in height (or 20 times
larger than the mitral valve) is more vital (valuable) than a mitral
valve. After all, it is larger — and eo ipso more important! That one
can live without one lung for 80 years (like Jorge!) but cannot without
a mitral valve 1/20th its size for little more than five seconds, is
only of superficial significance. And stem cells are smaller still!
And what is more, they do not count as the products of murder ... since
it was committed 60 years ago!
As we had said earlier: these murders happened 60 years ago — so it’s
okay! If murder was committed yesterday, then, it is of far greater
gravity than had it been committed last year — and it diminishes in
gravity and culpability as the weeks, months, and years pass, until
it no longer attains to being murder at all. This is not juridical reasoning,
still less moral reasoning. In fact, there is no reasoning at all. It
simply falls under the auspices of liberal “policy” articulated in the
proposition that “ABORTION-is-not-understood-as-the-murder-of-a-baby-and-so-it’s-okay”
— the logically indefensible tenet of Planned Parenthood and the Democratic
Party at large.
Do not be shocked by the moral indifference of our scientific “caregivers”
— they are largely the product of other ghouls from earlier historical
nightmares. Do a search on Unit 731 and Operation Paperclip. American
doctors, scientists, biologists and virologists, among others, eagerly
poured into those abattoirs to take notes on the Japanese “experiments”
before they could be destroyed — and even granted the death-dealers
immunity as a trade for their findings in the bodies subjected to vivisection
and every imaginable torture! Almost as frightening as this, is that
there is no existing record or account of pangs of conscience from these
... academics. No moral outrage. Only sterile scientific notes, and
the picking of the bones of the dead.
_________________________
Printable PDF Version
Comments? Write us:
editor@boston-catholic-journal.com
|
