fides' Jack's Mega Anti-Vax Thread

[hakutaku]

9 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

No to all 4 points.  Each of the 4 points contain incorrect information about what I've stated or about what I recognize.

Then lets pick one and get into it!  I choose the most relevant one:

28 minutes ago, hakutaku said:

You have explicitly made assertions that contradict the data I showed you (e.g. that suicides increased after I provided the data indicated the opposite, or that excess deaths were small after I provided the data which indicated they were not) but not provided any sources to defend your claims.

I cited the excess death rate to you:

On 4/19/2021 at 9:30 PM, hakutaku said:

That is loony tunes when you look at 2020's excess death rates.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

and the suicide data here:

On 4/20/2021 at 12:00 AM, hakutaku said:

The suicide story is not nearly as bad as the fearmongers have been making out:

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2021-04/tl-tlp041221.php

 

On 4/20/2021 at 1:09 AM, hakutaku said:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/suicide-decline-united-states-covid-pandemic/

Nevertheless, you asserted:

On 4/20/2021 at 10:05 PM, fides' Jack said:

Suicide is way up in most areas, as the CDC itself admits.

Excess deaths are virtually non-existent, as multiple sources have shown over and over again.

Looks pretty spot-on to me?

Edited April 23, 2021 by hakutaku

[fides' Jack]

30 minutes ago, hakutaku said:

Then lets pick one and get into it!

No thanks.

[Peace]

On 4/21/2021 at 11:54 PM, Anastasia said:

Well, since you yourself make such comparison you may be interested to read the paper The moral hazard of Covid-19 vaccines that have been tested using aborted fetal tissue: a comparison to the moral dilemma of using data derived from Nazi experiments on prisoners of war and on Jews of the Holocaust for the purposes of saving lives.

This is not true. Using "abortion material" implicitly encourages trafficking of foetal organs and it is happening now. The only way to say "no" to that is to swap the old unethical vaccines with the ethical (even gradually) and, of course, not to make new abortion-tainted vaccines. Most importantly though is that 1) the ethical covid vaccines are being created so they are possible and there is no need to make the unethical ones 2) covid itself with its fatality rate does not warrant the usage of the abortion-tainted vaccines (like rabies for example when the death is 99% certain).

Yet, leaving all that aside the major evil re: abortion-tainted vaccines and the Church is that the Church leaders do not call for repentance and do not speak about murdered human beings thus joining the world in making them invisible, non-existent.

Well the question is where do we draw the line. In the USA it's near impossible to do anything other than go to church and not support the abortion industry in some indirect form or another. You go watch The Avengers, half the actors in the movie are big pro-choice advocates. Immoral to buy a ticket? Pretty much every thing in the USA is tainted by abortion if you look deep enough. Were are all gonna have to become hermits?

But yeah the current vaccines are closer in proximity. I'll give you that. For me me I just gotta say that Catholics have a hierarchy in which such decisions are made, so if the Vatican comes along and says "moral to take those vaccines" that's cool enough from my perspective, unless I am 100% convinced that my judgment is better than theirs, which is almost never the case. We have a living magisterium that tells us where the line is. We follow their guidance. Simple as that for me in most cases.

If you are EO how are those decisions made? Do you have to adhere to what your bishop concludes on the matter, or is each person free to do his own analysis and disagree with his bishop if he comes to a different conclusion?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

if the Vatican comes along and says "moral to take those vaccines" that's cool enough from my perspective, unless I am 100% convinced that my judgment is better than theirs, which is almost never the case

1 hour ago, Peace said:

Pretty much every thing in the USA is tainted by abortion if you look deep enough.

 

[Ash Wednesday]

One of the issues that we have in all this is that how the CDF guidance is applied and opinions on the moral liceity of the vaccines is going to be based on studies and opinions that come from science and medicine, especially on points 1-3. Point 4 is pretty clear. I think a lot of it has roots in how someone views Covid and the pandemic in general and how grave of a situation it is. I have two people in my family who view Covid and the pandemic very differently, and one thing I've noticed is that they disagree on who they consider to be reliable sources in the field of science and medicine in the first place. What's more, science and medicine's epistemology by nature is often a constant changing and refining process.

I think debating the moral liciety of the vaccines and how to apply the CDF is absolutely fine, and even necessary lest people become complacent about the root moral issue at hand. In a nutshell, as with covid and the pandemic, diversity of opinion is allowed, I think the only thing I take issue with are Catholics that either virtue signal or demonize each other over their decision -- whether it's to take the vaccine or abstain. Heaven knows this pandemic has already been awful, people need not make it even worse for each other than it already is.

[Anastasia]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

If you are EO how are those decisions made? Do you have to adhere to what your bishop concludes on the matter, or is each person free to do his own analysis and disagree with his bishop if he comes to a different conclusion?

We do not have to adhere to what a Bishop or Patriarch say if their teaching are not in a line with the Tradition and the Scriptures. We are especially big on the Church Fathers so we tend to examine things in that light. The difference between the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology, in a nutshell, is that the former seems to think that only the clergy hold the truth of the faith and only they are to teach, and the laity are only to listen and to obey. If a Pope says something semi-heretical there is usually much fear of "disobedience" that seems to paralyze the ability to think and feel (something I observe now in the Roman Catholic Church re: vaccines).

The Eastern Orthodox Ecclesiology states that the truth of faith is possessed by all people (but it must always in a line with Scriptures and Tradition unlike Protestants). We have had in our history (in in fact, in the history of both Churches or the undivided Church before the Schism) the situations when the majority of the Bishops fell for heresy and the truth of the doctrine was upheld by laity and some monastics. So, an Orthodox has no problem when he hears that a Bishop or a Patriarch says "vaccines are good, go for it" to say "a Bishop/a Patriarch is pitching cannibalism = sacrifice to Baal, this is a sign of Antichrist". And there is no inner conflict in simply rejecting what a Bishop/Patriarch says and, of course, in speaking to the fellow Orthodox about that. We do not have a fear of disobedience to the Church hierarchy but we have a huge fear of falling away from the Tradition of the ancient Church/from Christ (this is to clarify that Orthodoxy has nothing to do with Protestantism).

Both ways have their merits. It is very practical to have a trust in own Bishops, that they will not lead people astray - providing that those Bishops are fervent followers of Christ who value being with Christ more than being "nice". However, in a time of crisis and apostasia there is a huge risk of falling into the precipice following the blind Bishops. The Orthodox Church with is boiling "Anathema to you! - No, to you!" can be exhausting at times of peace it the habit to discern definitely pays off in times of crisis.

[Anastasia]

PS Actually, some of your own i.e. Roman Catholic clergy who deem the abortion-tainted covid vaccines to be unacceptable (the examples of such thinking were given by Fides' Jack here) are not so different from the Orthodox - the same refusal to bend the truth to suit temporal needs and fears.

I will leave here the link to the statement of the Eastern Orthodox Bishop re: vaccination. Scroll down to read the English text.
On vaccination against coronavirus

 

[Anastasia]

I feel that answering the question about the Eastern Orthodox practice got the thread diverted from the topic which is far more important. Because of that I feel I have to repeat the things re: covid vaccines I have been writing here again and again but what somehow seems to be "a blind spot" of the majority of the Roman Catholics - repentance (that is a natural result of feeling that he is doing something bad).

One does not need to have the extensive knowledge of theology to decide whether the abortion-tainted vaccine is acceptable for him or not (in fact one does not need even to be a Christian for that), one just needs to have a keen sense of a personhood of the aborted human being.

A someone does not believe that a foetus is a person – no ethical problem apart from perhaps some unpleasant feeling re: “medicine utilized a human body”.

If someone believes a foetus is a person then the factors which may justify the usage of an abortion-tainted vaccine come to a play. It is highly personal. What is the fatality rate of covid? Am I at huge risk? Am I just terrified of a possibility of death? How does all this stand against accepting the abortion-tainted = evil vaccine? How does it stand against the fact that the ethically acceptable vaccines have been created already and there was no need to create the unethical ones? How do I feel after that analysis?

One factor is remaining though for one who call himself Christian. It is the fact that the vaccine utilized the murder of a human being who has a personhood. If it is so then one must repent if he decides to use such a “product”. It is completely irrelevant that one “did not abort/did not extract a kidney form the body of a human being/did not distill the liquid/etc”. There is an undeniable sin in all that and in using it as well. Even if the fatality rate of covid was 99% it would still be a sin. Even if it would be not possible to create the ethical vaccine it would still be a sin, against God and the murdered human person and against oneself. The vaccination with abortion-tainted vaccine still demands repentance of all involved in making, giving and receiving. But this fact is totally missing in the Roman Catholic Church. Instead, it is being swapped with “it is your moral duty”. It boils down to the following paradigm: “it is your moral duty to accept the abortion-tainted vaccines out of love for your neighbour”; since it is “for the greater good” you do not need repent that. And if you are in doubt do not worry, we who know better decided it for you.

It is basically pushing people into a sin accompanied by a sense that they do something good, selfless and in a line with Christianity; they are even morally superior to those who reject the abortion-tainted vaccine. What stops the Roman Catholic Church say: it is a sin, do it if you are desperate but you will have to repent for that? Again and again, I am not saying "do not vaccinate", I am saying "if you are desperate then vaccinate but with the full knowledge of that sin and repent and ask forgiveness of the murdered human being" - but no, that just does not sink in. Probably because it is so nice to sin and to remain clean at the same time, in own eyes.

That conditioning of the faithful to sin and feel fine or even morally superior via conducting that sin - thus no repentance - is the kernel of the evil.

Edited April 24, 2021 by Anastasia

[Peace]

11 hours ago, Anastasia said:

We do not have to adhere to what a Bishop or Patriarch say if their teaching are not in a line with the Tradition and the Scriptures. We are especially big on the Church Fathers so we tend to examine things in that light. The difference between the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology, in a nutshell, is that the former seems to think that only the clergy hold the truth of the faith and only they are to teach, and the laity are only to listen and to obey. If a Pope says something semi-heretical there is usually much fear of "disobedience" that seems to paralyze the ability to think and feel (something I observe now in the Roman Catholic Church re: vaccines).

The Eastern Orthodox Ecclesiology states that the truth of faith is possessed by all people (but it must always in a line with Scriptures and Tradition unlike Protestants). We have had in our history (in in fact, in the history of both Churches or the undivided Church before the Schism) the situations when the majority of the Bishops fell for heresy and the truth of the doctrine was upheld by laity and some monastics. So, an Orthodox has no problem when he hears that a Bishop or a Patriarch says "vaccines are good, go for it" to say "a Bishop/a Patriarch is pitching cannibalism = sacrifice to Baal, this is a sign of Antichrist". And there is no inner conflict in simply rejecting what a Bishop/Patriarch says and, of course, in speaking to the fellow Orthodox about that. We do not have a fear of disobedience to the Church hierarchy but we have a huge fear of falling away from the Tradition of the ancient Church/from Christ (this is to clarify that Orthodoxy has nothing to do with Protestantism).

Both ways have their merits. It is very practical to have a trust in own Bishops, that they will not lead people astray - providing that those Bishops are fervent followers of Christ who value being with Christ more than being "nice". However, in a time of crisis and apostasia there is a huge risk of falling into the precipice following the blind Bishops. The Orthodox Church with is boiling "Anathema to you! - No, to you!" can be exhausting at times of peace it the habit to discern definitely pays off in times of crisis.

Why have clergy though if they have no real teaching authority? If everybody ultimately gets to decide for himself what is true and what is false then what is the point of having clergy teach, when they can just be overridden by anyone who disagrees with them? Not really much different from a Protestant framework in that respect, you have to admit right?

But yeah I mean you do have a point. There have been situations where the clergy has been wrong, and personal conscience does have some role in my decision making. If the pope came along one day and said "It is OK to rape and murder infants" I would say "Nope. Sorry pope. I am gonna have to disagree with you there. Sounds a bit like heresy to me." But that's because I am 100% correct that I am right in that situation. With all of these other issues they are a lot more complex and I think its pretty brazen for individual laypersons to basically say "I know better than you" to their bishops and replace their bishops judgment with their own. When we do that we basically say that Holy Orders have no meaning in my opinion.

I think that the first reaction of any Catholic lay-person should be oriented towards obedience. If he has issues with the teaching, then there is a process whereby he can make his concerns known, but ultimately its up to the bishops to decide. The reason I am comfortable with this I suppose is that I have faith that the Church cannot teach error and that the She will ultimately work out and teach the correct doctrine, even though it may take some time for the point in question to be properly analyzed for the correct answer. There may be times along the path where bishops are wrong and laypeople are correct, but over the long course of time bishops are pretty much destined to get it right, since the Church cannot err.

[Peace]

10 hours ago, Anastasia said:

I feel that answering the question about the Eastern Orthodox practice got the thread diverted from the topic which is far more important. Because of that I feel I have to repeat the things re: covid vaccines I have been writing here again and again but what somehow seems to be "a blind spot" of the majority of the Roman Catholics - repentance (that is a natural result of feeling that he is doing something bad).

One does not need to have the extensive knowledge of theology to decide whether the abortion-tainted vaccine is acceptable for him or not (in fact one does not need even to be a Christian for that), one just needs to have a keen sense of a personhood of the aborted human being.

A someone does not believe that a foetus is a person – no ethical problem apart from perhaps some unpleasant feeling re: “medicine utilized a human body”.

If someone believes a foetus is a person then the factors which may justify the usage of an abortion-tainted vaccine come to a play. It is highly personal. What is the fatality rate of covid? Am I at huge risk? Am I just terrified of a possibility of death? How does all this stand against accepting the abortion-tainted = evil vaccine? How does it stand against the fact that the ethically acceptable vaccines have been created already and there was no need to create the unethical ones? How do I feel after that analysis?

One factor is remaining though for one who call himself Christian. It is the fact that the vaccine utilized the murder of a human being who has a personhood. If it is so then one must repent if he decides to use such a “product”. It is completely irrelevant that one “did not abort/did not extract a kidney form the body of a human being/did not distill the liquid/etc”. There is an undeniable sin in all that and in using it as well. Even if the fatality rate of covid was 99% it would still be a sin. Even if it would be not possible to create the ethical vaccine it would still be a sin, against God and the murdered human person and against oneself. The vaccination with abortion-tainted vaccine still demands repentance of all involved in making, giving and receiving. But this fact is totally missing in the Roman Catholic Church. Instead, it is being swapped with “it is your moral duty”. It boils down to the following paradigm: “it is your moral duty to accept the abortion-tainted vaccines out of love for your neighbour”; since it is “for the greater good” you do not need repent that. And if you are in doubt do not worry, we who know better decided it for you.

It is basically pushing people into a sin accompanied by a sense that they do something good, selfless and in a line with Christianity; they are even morally superior to those who reject the abortion-tainted vaccine. What stops the Roman Catholic Church say: it is a sin, do it if you are desperate but you will have to repent for that? Again and again, I am not saying "do not vaccinate", I am saying "if you are desperate then vaccinate but with the full knowledge of that sin and repent and ask forgiveness of the murdered human being" - but no, that just does not sink in. Probably because it is so nice to sin and to remain clean at the same time, in own eyes.

That conditioning of the faithful to sin and feel fine or even morally superior via conducting that sin - thus no repentance - is the kernel of the evil.

I mean this is cool. You view it as a sin that needs to be repented of, even though you are allowed to take it anyway? It kinds of reminds me of the EO position on divorce and remarriage I guess. You say its wrong but you allow people to do it as long as they repent? Have I misunderstood what you meant to say?

I think the Vatican viewpoint is different though. I don't think the Catholic Church ever operates like "We have concluded that X is sin but under the present circumstances it is allowed, and we ask that you repent of it." If the Catholic Church concludes that X is sin, then it is not permitted, period.

If you read the document that the Vatican put out, I think its clear that they don't view taking the vaccine under the present circumstances as sin. They don't agree with your particular analysis that the act in question is sin that would need to be repented of if committed.

Now whether your analysis is correct or the Vatican is correct I do not know, but to be frank it would not even cross my mind to consider the analysis of someone outside of the Church that differs from what my own bishops teach. And that's nothing against you personally - I just don't care what any non-Catholics have to say concerning moral issues because I view my own Church as having the fullness of the truth and being the best moral authority, established by Christ himself when he personally walked the Earth.

If my own bishop told me it was immoral to take the vaccine then I think I would have a problem on my hands and I would need to figure out if I should be following my bishop or the Vatican, but as my bishop and the Vatican and most other Catholic clergy I have run into seem to take the position that it is not sin to take the vaccine, the issue is pretty much resolved for me with respect to that. If I disagreed with them I'd just be saying "I know better than you" when it comes down to it.

[hakutaku]

On 4/21/2021 at 5:04 PM, fides' Jack said:

Reading the teaching of the Church about the morality of vaccines, this priest says it's mortally sinful to take COVID vaccines:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-doc-confirms-its-mortally-sinful-to-take-or-facilitate-covid-vaccine-priest

Lol, your "priest" had to write his article anonymously because if he put his name out there, he would have been censored by the Church.  But somehow this is taken as evidence you can validly believe what the priest said and still be in good standing with the church.

[Ash Wednesday]

17 hours ago, Anastasia said:

But this fact is totally missing in the Roman Catholic Church. Instead, it is being swapped with “it is your moral duty”. It boils down to the following paradigm: “it is your moral duty to accept the abortion-tainted vaccines out of love for your neighbour”; since it is “for the greater good” you do not need repent that. And if you are in doubt do not worry, we who know better decided it for you.

The CDF has stated that Catholics are NOT morally obligated to take the vaccine. I know that Francis has pushed it heavily and favorably in statements, but in such a circumstance it is the personal opinion of the pope, and not everyone agrees with it.  In such a circumstance he's not speaking with the same authority that he would, say ex-cathedra or in an encyclical that upholds long-held Church teaching on a moral issue. As I said, diversity of opinion is allowed. The statement below has much more weight of consideration:
 

Quote

5. At the same time, practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary. 

The only moral obligation for those that abstain is to make the effort to avoid spreading disease.

Quote

What stops the Roman Catholic Church say: it is a sin, do it if you are desperate but you will have to repent for that? 

I think this is where Roman Catholic moral theology comes in to play here, and as Eastern Orthodox, I think this where the misunderstanding comes from, because it sounds like the Orthodox and the Catholics don't approach this the same way, from what you are saying. This in itself merits a topic on its own, however.

[Ash Wednesday]

Another thing that I think has been overlooked and neglected is a point made in Dignitas Personae in 2008 -- people should still be pushing for ethical vaccines. 

Quote

everyone has the duty to make known their disagreement and to ask that their healthcare system make other types of vaccines available. 

My overall point here is that it all isn't as casual as people are making it out to be.

[Peace]

10 minutes ago, Ash Wednesday said:

I think this is where Roman Catholic moral theology comes in to play here, and as Eastern Orthodox, I think this where the misunderstanding comes from, because it sounds like the Orthodox and the Catholics don't approach this the same way, from what you are saying. This in itself merits a topic on its own, however.

Yeah the whole idea of what she suggested offends my senses as a Catholic.

I think she views the Catholic Church as essentially taking a cop-out.

Instead of calling sin "sin" and then permitting people to do it and then ask them to repent for it like the EO does in the case of divorce and remarriage, she seems to think that the Church calls sin "morally licit" in effect to allow the same sinful activity without having to formally recognize it as wrong. So she would look at our "annulment" as substantively the same as EO "divorce and remarriage" except that they call the activity "sin" and we do not call it sin.

She doesn't buy the Catholic Church's decisions as to what activities are morally licit and which activities are sin and thus views the Church as taking a cop-out. That is understandable. If she agreed with the Catholic Church on everything she would be Catholic and not EO.

But what is not understandable is that she doesn't seem to realize that her own church's determinations, or her own personal determinations, as to what is morally licit activity and what is sin is essentially irrelevant to the Catholic. I mean, she can say "the pope is wrong here" or "the CDF is wrong there" but I don't see why she seems to expect that anyone will turn away from the pope and the CDF and follow (or even seriously consider) the ruminations of a random non-Catholic on the internet.

[Ash Wednesday]

It just occurred to me that much of the (Catholic) Church's moral theology is from St. Thomas Aquinas, being after the east-west schism, so this would perhaps explain some of the differences there. If I'm honest I've been too busy to read up on these things and there are scholars on here that are far more knowledgeable about this than I am. 

In any case, "we who know better have decided it for you" is not really a correct assessment, certainly not with the vaccine. Catholics are still given allowance to decide for themselves whether or not to take the vaccine, they are not morally obligated and indeed, some Catholics, bishops and theologians don't think the CDF guidelines of moral liceity are met and they are allowed to hold this belief.