Posted on 03/09/2021 7:20:15 PM PST by ebb tide
The world is flat. I see it and know what flat looks like.
So you have to believe it with no evidence or supporting facts.
I do not support abortion but I really do not support one person with a BS in Biology as the final authority when no evidence or proof is given.
Haven’t we had enough politically based lies in the last few years.
This is the word of one person who’s credibility and or accessibility/ability to even possess this knowledge is unknown; some will believe this just as if God himself had whispered in in their ear at midnight last night.
Have you received the abortion-tainted vaccine and trying to justify your act?
Please supply your proof that it is a lie.
If you had even read the article, the biologist has not only a B.S., she also has a Masters; but rage does set some people off in their rants.
Because it affects traditional Catholic teaching on remote material cooperation in sin. It’s not the one, but that it happened decades ago. If you haven’t read up on this, now’s not the time for me to get into it.
Well you are apparently not aware of Bishops Schneider’s and Strickland’s opinions.
To me, you appear to be priest shopping.
You want traditional Catholic teaching?
Here it is:
The Summa Theologiæ of St. Thomas Aquinas
Therefore, in no way can the acquisition, production, dissemination, or use of unethically derived vaccines be morally justified or ethically permissible. Nor can the CDF document be reconciled with the long tradition of the Church with regard to a defense of human persons or the sanctity of human life, the contravention of which “always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being.” It is therefore on the authority of St. John Paul II and St. Paul VI and the long tradition of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, that we are reminded:
“No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church.”[2]
John Paul II’s explication of the Magisterium in this regard is supported by St. Thomas Aquinas with regard to the question of sacrilege. In On Evil, Aquinas discusses whether circumstance can alter the species of a sin, thereby making a mortal sin a lesser and more venial sin. By way of example, Aquinas specifies the act of stealing a consecrated chalice. Though the thief is concerned primarily with the fact that the chalice is itself made of gold, does this negligence remove the act of sacrilege? Aquinas argues that the sin of sacrilege still holds, for “the thief’s will is still directed to the sacred object by implication, since the thief prefers to steal the sacred object than to lack the gold.” Traditional natural lawyers would rightly point toward definitions as laid out in Evangelium Vitae describing certain actions as morally impermissible in every instance regardless as to intention precisely because such acts involve the abuse of the things of God—namely the destruction of human life:
Has Schneider or Strickland agreed that vaccines involved more than the few procured decades ago (ie. agree with Acker’s report)? I have not seen anyone agree with this, so a link showing that would be helpful to me. I have seen different opinions on the latter though, so I know there are different Catholic opinions on that.
I have provided links to both bishops’ opinions on Free Republic.
Go fetch. I’m not about to spoon feed a sedevacantist.
I am well aware of traditional teaching, so I am not asking you for that. I have already done my homework on that. What I would like to know is if any Catholic priest agrees with Acker’s report. If so, a link to that would be helpful to me. Thank you.
Yes, it sure does.
You are unnecessarily rude to me. I asked a sincere question thinking you would have the information. If you don’t, just say so.
I see now. Your concern appears to be more about how many abortions were performed for the cell line, and how long ago. Well it took 293 experiments by the time 1973 came around.
I’m sorry but I refuse to engage in such trivial semantics regarding the murder of babies.
Jesus Christ was crucified over 2,000 years ago, but I still feel responsible for His death. Why should I avoid further cooperation with evil in the murder of a baby girl in 1973?
How am I supposed to provide a Catholic priest’s opinion to a sedevacantist?
You need to find a sede forum to get your satisfaction.
And I just told you that I have provided that information on this forum.
Sorry for wounding your pride. But get over it.
You did ask for that:
In you post 45, you said, "Because it affects traditional Catholic teaching on remote material cooperation in sin. It’s not the one, but that it happened decades ago."
If your were truly aware of traditional teaching, you wouldn't be asking these questions, would you?
It would be helpful to me if ANY Catholic priest agreed with this woman because it would make a difference when applying Catholic moral principles regarding cooperation in sin...and that is not a trivial matter. It doesn’t have to be a sedevacantist priest; however, I suspect that there is no proof that anyone does because so far I can’t seem to get any support for it anywhere.
Take care....
NO, read it again. I stated that it affects traditional teaching. I did not ask you for help with that. I already knew that.
I’m done here with you. All you want to do is argue with me.
“Please supply your proof that it is a lie.”
My point was that this is not verified or supported with any evidence or proven verifiable facts at all.
The author made the statement and it sounds like you want to believe it. The position of proving the statement true is on you and the author.
Do you also believe the world is flat just because I told you so?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.