Vaccine and Catholicism

SeekingTruth

Kingfisher




From a theological point of view, I’m trying to resolve in my mind that I shouldn’t have any thoughts of “the greater good” or “collectivism”, as they put it, as far as taking a vaccine. Please keep in mind that I’m just a neophyte.

I understand that we cannot completely trust the actions of big pharm or for scientists to claim to know the full long term outcome of these v’s. Also, these v’s are either made with aborted fetal cells or developed using testing on these cells. This alone should be enough of a reason for most Christians to reject them. But I see how others might be tempted to sacrifice themselves, like Jesus did. We also see how Pope Francis is advocating for this as well. Is it a sin in that I’m not loving my neighbor?

The recent studies showing the fully vaccinated contribute to spread help to alleviate the stress involved with these thoughts.

I’m in no way advocating to take this thing. But, I want to get other’s opinions about how they are making the decision not to get vaccinated as a Catholic when we are supposed to be following the actions of the Pope. Also, the priest at my Church was advocating for them as well, so I haven’t approached him on this topic.
 
Last edited:

Godward

Robin
I’m in no way advocating to take this thing. But, I want to get other’s opinions about how they are making the decision not to get vaccinated as a Catholic when we are supposed to be following the actions of the Pope. Also, the priest at my Church was advocating for them as well, so I haven’t approached him on this topic.

Well, as Catholics we are supposed to be following the example of Christ, and not so much that of the Pope (and especially not this one). But there is indeed a moral difficulty if the situation arises where everyone in authority claims you have to get vaccinated. We cannot simply ignore that. But it would be strange if they made this claim, since all available vaccines have indeed utilized (aborted) fetal cells in either its development or testing, and the Vatican has utterly failed at promoting and supporting a vaccine that is fetal cell line free (which are actually in development as well). Any "obligation" from "authority" to assist an evil act such as abortion and the evil use of fetal cells is simply null and void.
 

Pancras

Sparrow
The Morality of Vaccinations: Are Traditional Catholics Permitted to Take Shots?

Vaccine injections are a hot topic, especially at the current time. Whether one may receive them, must receive them, or must refuse them, are questions for Catholic moral theology.

The Pastoralia show of the sedevacantist True Restoration media apostolate features Catholic priests who provide sound pastoral advice to faithful Catholics, helping them to form their consciences in accordance with traditional Catholic morality so they can correctly apply the Church’s moral principles to the often complex situations they face in today’s world.

In Episode 18 of Pastoralia (found below), Fr. Stephen McKenna speaks on the subject of vaccinations. Although it is a somewhat complicated topic, Father’s presentation is clear, precise, and easy to follow. His discussion with host Stephen Heiner includes the state of modern vaccines and whether it is morally obligatory to refuse vaccines derived from tissue of children who were killed through the heinous practice of abortion.

The episode was first released on June 26, 2020, but it was restricted to subscribers of True Restoration. We decided to sponsor this episode, thereby making it available to the public, as we believe that it is extremely important that people be informed as to the morality of having themselves or their children vaccinated.

Important disclaimer: Nothing in this post or in the Pastoralia episode is meant to be medical advice. Rather, Father is speaking on the morality of vaccinations so that Catholics can make their own decisions about whether or not to receive particular vaccines, with a conscience that is well-formed and certain. Also, we wish to state very clearly that we are not encouraging anyone either to take or not take any particular vaccine, whether for COVID-19, the flu, or any other disease or condition. There may be serious health risks associated with all vaccines in general and with some vaccines in particular. Our intent is merely to inform the public as to what moral principles govern the decision-making of a Catholic when it comes to getting vaccinated.

The full audio of Episode 18 of Pastoralia is available at True Restoration and can also be listened to in the player below:


As Catholics, we have an obligation to form our consciences in accord with the Church’s moral theology, “in season, out of season” (2 Tim 2:4), rather than go by personal preferences, feelings, or socio-political trends. Because the Church is our guide, we can be assured that we will not be misled. As Pope Pius XI said, “a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord” (Encyclical Casti Connubii, n. 104).

An excellent resource for the Church’s traditional moral doctrine is the 2-volume compendium Moral Theology: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Best Modern Authorities by the Dominican Fathers John McHugh and Charles Callan (imprimatur 1958). The full text of both volumes is available for free online at Project Gutenberg. People interested in printed copies may obtain them here:

McHugh and Callan’s discussion of cooperation in sin can be found in nn. 1506-1544. These sections are particularly applicable in regard to vaccines derived in immoral ways, and readers will find the principles enunciated and explained by Fr. McKenna verified there.
 

BLMeToo

Sparrow

This is a statement from the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith. Even they say vaccines must be voluntary. Use this as Catholic ammo to resist vaccination.

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. In any case, from the ethical point of view, the morality of vaccination depends not only on the duty to protect one's own health, but also on the duty to pursue the common good. In the absence of other means to stop or even prevent the epidemic, the common good may recommend vaccination, especially to protect the weakest and most exposed. Those who, however, for reasons of conscience, refuse vaccines produced with cell lines from aborted fetuses, must do their utmost to avoid, by other prophylactic means and appropriate behavior, becoming vehicles for the transmission of the infectious agent. In particular, they must avoid any risk to the health of those who cannot be vaccinated for medical or other reasons, and who are the most vulnerable.
 

SoCal9705

Pigeon




From a theological point of view, I’m trying to resolve in my mind that I shouldn’t have any thoughts of “the greater good” or “collectivism”, as they put it, as far as taking a vaccine. Please keep in mind that I’m just a neophyte.

I understand that we cannot completely trust the actions of big pharm or for scientists to claim to know the full long term outcome of these v’s. Also, these v’s are either made with aborted fetal cells or developed using testing on these cells. This alone should be enough of a reason for most Christians to reject them. But I see how others might be tempted to sacrifice themselves, like Jesus did. We also see how Pope Francis is advocating for this as well. Is it a sin in that I’m not loving my neighbor?

The recent studies showing the fully vaccinated contribute to spread help to alleviate the stress involved with these thoughts.

I’m in no way advocating to take this thing. But, I want to get other’s opinions about how they are making the decision not to get vaccinated as a Catholic when we are supposed to be following the actions of the Pope. Also, the priest at my Church was advocating for them as well, so I haven’t approached him on this topic.

Yes the vaccines for covid (and i think all vaccines and other medical technology) are made using a cell line derived from an abortion that was performed in the 1970s. While we certainly cannot cooperate with the evil of abortion the evil here is remote enough from our action that we are not in fact cooperating with evil. Since Christ gave the "binding and loosing" authority to the Church, we are entitled to rely on their determinations on the issue. Admit too you cannot research every medical technology to find out whether somewhere along the line a product of an abortion or other evil was utilized. If you want a vaccine have no reservations about it, if you don't that is fine too.

There is certainly no sin in declining the vax, you may or may not follow the suggestions of the Pope on this. Catholics are not obligated to "follow the actions of the Pope". His pro-vax position is his personal view of the matter. He need be obeyed only on matters of faith and morals when speaking "ex cathedra", of which this is neither.

While it is true that vaxed people can spread covid, having the vax means your risk of serious illness from it is very remote, which is not so for the unvaxed. I got the vax as i visit vulnerable family members and did not want to spread it to them, so we all got it. I think RNA vaccines are going to be the future due to their enormous advantages so we probably may as well get used to it.

 

SeekingTruth

Kingfisher
While it is true that vaxed people can spread covid, having the vax means your risk of serious illness from it is very remote, which is not so for the unvaxed. I got the vax as i visit vulnerable family members and did not want to spread it to them, so we all got it. I think RNA vaccines are going to be the future due to their enormous advantages so we probably may as well get used to it
Thank you for the reply. Just remember, yes you can still spread to vulnerable family members, even vaccinated. Not spreading as vaccinated was not one of the outcomes obtained in the initial studies, and it is definitely showing now. The studies only proved to lessen serious illness, which you stated.

If you want to take a vaccine to lessen serious illness, your first step is to determine if you are even at risk for serious illness. I am not. Therefore, there is no logical point scientifically to take this thing. Not until long term risks are worked out, likely never in my mind. Modern medicine has failed us multiple times in the past and there's no reason why it won't continue to do so.

I also do not see these "enormous advantages" of mRNA vaccines. Tell me why introducing technology/gene therapy is an advantage beyond our God given immune system and function? You are taking over/toying with your cellular machinery. Not good. Also, how far would you like technology and science to progress all in the name of immortality? Should man attempt to fully control it's own mortality? Your answers just bring up additional major theological conflicts.
 

SeekingTruth

Kingfisher

This is a statement from the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith. Even they say vaccines must be voluntary. Use this as Catholic ammo to resist vaccination.
In the absence of other means to stop or even prevent the epidemic,

Well, considering that all of the other potential treatment modalities are being silenced, I no longer think this applies.
 

Jeff

Pigeon
Do we have the freedom to decide what goes into our bodies?
Is it really so hard for us to allow people to freely decide to get vaccinated or not?

Let’s review the account of Jesus before Pilate and Herod in the Gospel of St. Luke, in order to respond to the initial comment in the post regarding the vaccine that stated: “But I see how others might be tempted to sacrifice themselves, like Jesus.”

Then the whole multitude of them arose and led Him to Pilate.
And they began to accuse Him, saying, “We found this man misleading the nation, and forbidding to pay tribute to Caesar, saying that He Himself is Christ, a King.”
Then Pilate asked Him, saying, “Are You the King of the Jews?” He answered him and said, “It is as you say.” (Luke 23:1-3)

One of the accusations of the multitude was that Jesus was misleading the nation. Doesn’t that sound eerily familiar to the rhetoric surrounding the vaccine in our day?

Now when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceedingly glad; for he had desired for a long time to see Him, because he had heard many things about Him, and he hoped to see some miracle done by Him.
Then he questioned Him with many words, but He answered him nothing. (Luke 23:8-9)

I mentioned these verses to give a reasonable objection to the position that anyone should sacrifice themselves “like Jesus” when it comes to getting vaccinated. Jesus did not succumb to the pressure of the multitude, but peaceably resisted them unto death. In fact, He didn’t even answer Herod’s questions.

Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again.
No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.
(John 10:17-18)

Let’s see how St. Luke describes the reaction of Pilate and Herod after their encounter with Jesus.

That very day Pilate and Herod became friends with each other, for previously they had been at enmity with each other.
(Luke 23:12)

The one thing that can unite tyrants...
is a free man...
So Come, and Welcome to Jesus Christ
 

Godward

Robin
Yes the vaccines for covid (and i think all vaccines and other medical technology) are made using a cell line derived from an abortion that was performed in the 1970s. While we certainly cannot cooperate with the evil of abortion the evil here is remote enough from our action that we are not in fact cooperating with evil.

In your view, when is an act "remote" enough that cooperating with it is no longer evil? What determines that? And what "remoteness" is there when these fetal line cells are STILL being used?
 

Feyoder

Kingfisher
It's very simple. Even in secular law murder has not statue of limitations. And you should never seek out to benefit from it. Abortion is murder. The vaccine uses cells clones from a murdered person. "Too remote"? What a completely shameful and retarded thing to even consider. If I kill your mother is it ok if 50 years later I use her house? It's mine right? I killed her and it's been ages.

How is it even a discussion?
 

SoCal9705

Pigeon
Thank you for the reply. Just remember, yes you can still spread to vulnerable family members, even vaccinated. Not spreading as vaccinated was not one of the outcomes obtained in the initial studies, and it is definitely showing now. The studies only proved to lessen serious illness, which you stated.

If you want to take a vaccine to lessen serious illness, your first step is to determine if you are even at risk for serious illness. I am not. Therefore, there is no logical point scientifically to take this thing. Not until long term risks are worked out, likely never in my mind. Modern medicine has failed us multiple times in the past and there's no reason why it won't continue to do so.

I also do not see these "enormous advantages" of mRNA vaccines. Tell me why introducing technology/gene therapy is an advantage beyond our God given immune system and function? You are taking over/toying with your cellular machinery. Not good. Also, how far would you like technology and science to progress all in the name of immortality? Should man attempt to fully control it's own mortality? Your answers just bring up additional major theological conflicts.

The enormous advantages are the very rapid response in producing a vaccine, and the much lower cost. Also, this vax is NOT gene therapy, it does not interact with your genes in any way. It does not enter the nucleus of the cell where your DNA is located.

I agree you have a right to decline the vaccine, I never suggested otherwise. For me and many other people who interact with family members in vulnerable groups, it makes sense to get the vax. I also had a desire to be able to do things that involve being around a lot of people, many of whom probably carry diseases even pre-covid. There is also moderate pressure at work to get it (while the vax is not required, you must wear your mask if you're not vaxed, but may roam free if vaxed). However, i have seen employment ads already stating vax is a requirement of employment.

Also note that many who thought they were not at serious risk turned out to be. I'm sure we've all seen the articles of folks on the Left celebrating when a person who refused the vax got very sick or died. While one can spread covid even if vaccinated, if other family members are also vaccinated, the risks of serious illness become very small. I don't think it's been established that everyone who has been vaxed can still spread covid, just some sub-population of vaxed persons. I don't think i would have done it but to protect family members, but i may be over estimating myself given the pressure now being applied to the unvaxed. Nor can i be sure it won't have some later negative effect, but i doubt it, and if my whole family is going, i want to go with them.


In your view, when is an act "remote" enough that cooperating with it is no longer evil? What determines that? And what "remoteness" is there when these fetal line cells are STILL being used?

It's not up to any individual person, it's up to the bishops to make such determinations within the "binding and loosing" authority conferred on them by Our Lord . That is what i relied on in accepting the morality of the vax. The link above by "Seeking Truth" has some good info about the logic of it from the CDF. The fact that these cell lines have been maintained for some 50 years now and used in all sorts of technologies doesn't make it worse, it actually makes the evil action from which they were derived even more remote and unrelated to the vaccine.

I can certainly see why some people who don't trust the vax can use morality as a "virtuous" reason to decline, rather than just simply say they just don't trust it. This is why people will "dislike" a post even though the content is entirely factual. Since the Left has politicized the vaccine (as they politicize absolutely EVERYTHING) there are plenty of reasons to distrust and this is the world we have to live in.
 

SeekingTruth

Kingfisher
The enormous advantages are the very rapid response in producing a vaccine, and the much lower cost. Also, this vax is NOT gene therapy, it does not interact with your genes in any way. It does not enter the nucleus of the cell where your DNA is located.

I agree you have a right to decline the vaccine, I never suggested otherwise. For me and many other people who interact with family members in vulnerable groups, it makes sense to get the vax. I also had a desire to be able to do things that involve being around a lot of people, many of whom probably carry diseases even pre-covid. There is also moderate pressure at work to get it (while the vax is not required, you must wear your mask if you're not vaxed, but may roam free if vaxed). However, i have seen employment ads already stating vax is a requirement of employment.

Also note that many who thought they were not at serious risk turned out to be. I'm sure we've all seen the articles of folks on the Left celebrating when a person who refused the vax got very sick or died. While one can spread covid even if vaccinated, if other family members are also vaccinated, the risks of serious illness become very small. I don't think it's been established that everyone who has been vaxed can still spread covid, just some sub-population of vaxed persons. I don't think i would have done it but to protect family members, but i may be over estimating myself given the pressure now being applied to the unvaxed. Nor can i be sure it won't have some later negative effect, but i doubt it, and if my whole family is going, i want to go with them.




It's not up to any individual person, it's up to the bishops to make such determinations within the "binding and loosing" authority conferred on them by Our Lord . That is what i relied on in accepting the morality of the vax. The link above by "Seeking Truth" has some good info about the logic of it from the CDF. The fact that these cell lines have been maintained for some 50 years now and used in all sorts of technologies doesn't make it worse, it actually makes the evil action from which they were derived even more remote and unrelated to the vaccine.

I can certainly see why some people who don't trust the vax can use morality as a "virtuous" reason to decline, rather than just simply say they just don't trust it. This is why people will "dislike" a post even though the content is entirely factual. Since the Left has politicized the vaccine (as they politicize absolutely EVERYTHING) there are plenty of reasons to distrust and this is the world we have to live in.
There is so much wrong with this post I don’t even know where to start. You sir should enter the Coronavirus vaccine thread and start at page 1.
 

P. D.

Pigeon

Fr. Ripperger covered this topic in this excellent interview. People focus mostly on the remote material cooperation aspect related to the use of tissue from aborted babies. Remote material cooperation is a circumstance where the vaccine recipient assumes responsibility for the baby murder by cooperation. But a person is responsible only in proportion to the "distance" from the original immoral act.

But, according to Ripperger (and he quotes Fr. Copenhagen), there are other circumstances which the Vatican doesn't cover which are ongoing and don't diminish with distance:

In determining the moral liceity of using vaccines derived from abortion, an assessment of cooperation with evil in terms of distance from the original abortion is a necessary but ultimately insufficient criterion because there is another distinct and more immediate category of sin involved. To conclude, as some have, that there is only mediate remote material cooperation in abortion by the vaccine recipient is a red herring. It shifts emphasis away from the specific moral character of possessing and using the cell line itself toward “historical association” with the original abortion, obscuring the central problem while even causing it to go unnamed. The recipient is an immediate participant in the commission of continuous theft of human remains obtained through deliberate killing, their desecration through exploitation and trafficking, as well as ultimate omission to respectfully bury them. While the original killing establishes the illicit character of using the remains, their possession and use becomes a distinct evil in itself, the circumstances of which do not cease as a form of theft, desecration, exploitation, and refusal to bury, regardless of the consumer’s distance in time from the abortion, or the number of cell divisions, or the merely sub-cellular fragmentary inclusion of the child’s DNA and protein in the final dose.

As others have pointed out, the vaccine's overall effectiveness in protecting health is unproven, as is its contribution to the common good. These are scientific questions. The moral evils on the other hand are well established, most of which acknowledged by the Church herself. I don't see any reason whatsoever to submit to it.
 

Eusebius Erasmus

Pelican
Orthodox
The enormous advantages are the very rapid response in producing a vaccine, and the much lower cost. Also, this vax is NOT gene therapy, it does not interact with your genes in any way. It does not enter the nucleus of the cell where your DNA is located.

I agree you have a right to decline the vaccine, I never suggested otherwise. For me and many other people who interact with family members in vulnerable groups, it makes sense to get the vax. I also had a desire to be able to do things that involve being around a lot of people, many of whom probably carry diseases even pre-covid. There is also moderate pressure at work to get it (while the vax is not required, you must wear your mask if you're not vaxed, but may roam free if vaxed). However, i have seen employment ads already stating vax is a requirement of employment.

Also note that many who thought they were not at serious risk turned out to be. I'm sure we've all seen the articles of folks on the Left celebrating when a person who refused the vax got very sick or died. While one can spread covid even if vaccinated, if other family members are also vaccinated, the risks of serious illness become very small. I don't think it's been established that everyone who has been vaxed can still spread covid, just some sub-population of vaxed persons. I don't think i would have done it but to protect family members, but i may be over estimating myself given the pressure now being applied to the unvaxed. Nor can i be sure it won't have some later negative effect, but i doubt it, and if my whole family is going, i want to go with them.

It's not up to any individual person, it's up to the bishops to make such determinations within the "binding and loosing" authority conferred on them by Our Lord . That is what i relied on in accepting the morality of the vax. The link above by "Seeking Truth" has some good info about the logic of it from the CDF. The fact that these cell lines have been maintained for some 50 years now and used in all sorts of technologies doesn't make it worse, it actually makes the evil action from which they were derived even more remote and unrelated to the vaccine.

I can certainly see why some people who don't trust the vax can use morality as a "virtuous" reason to decline, rather than just simply say they just don't trust it. This is why people will "dislike" a post even though the content is entirely factual. Since the Left has politicized the vaccine (as they politicize absolutely EVERYTHING) there are plenty of reasons to distrust and this is the world we have to live in.

This is a giant cope.

A few points:

1. The Moderna and Pfizer jabs send mRNA, wrapped in a lipid nanoparticle layer, into your cells, which then are programmed to produce the coronavirus spike proteins. How is this not gene therapy?

2. The jab does not protect you from getting the virus, or from dying from it. Just look at the latest CDC data. The idea that you're 'protecting others' sounds like an excuse to engage in hedonistic activities (bars, clubs, concerts, etc.).

3. The coercion, both implicit and explicit, which is being forced upon unvaccinated doesn't bother you? This is clearly a precursor of the Mark of the Beast.

4. Your foolish bishops who are pro-vaxx have ZERO idea what they're talking about. Have they consulted Sucharit Bhakdi, Luc Montagnier, Byram Bridle, Robert Malone, and other top virologists who have warned against the vaccine and its dangers?

5. Read Matthew 16:23.
 

SoCal9705

Pigeon

Fr. Ripperger covered this topic in this excellent interview. People focus mostly on the remote material cooperation aspect related to the use of tissue from aborted babies. Remote material cooperation is a circumstance where the vaccine recipient assumes responsibility for the baby murder by cooperation. But a person is responsible only in proportion to the "distance" from the original immoral act.

But, according to Ripperger (and he quotes Fr. Copenhagen), there are other circumstances which the Vatican doesn't cover which are ongoing and don't diminish with distance:



As others have pointed out, the vaccine's overall effectiveness in protecting health is unproven, as is its contribution to the common good. These are scientific questions. The moral evils on the other hand are well established, most of which acknowledged by the Church herself. I don't see any reason whatsoever to submit to it.

With all due respect to Fr. Ripperger who I admire, I know of no bishop who has said any of the vaccines are morally unacceptable. In my diocese the bishop (a Francis appointee) went out of his way to recommend it, boasting that he and his entire office had gotten vaccinated. As the ordinary, this is his proper jurisdiction and I am within rights to rely on his moral determination, even if i might disagree with his personal views and opinions on everything else. We are not expected to be expert theologians, each making his own determination of what is morally right.

This is a giant cope.

A few points:

1. The Moderna and Pfizer jabs send mRNA, wrapped in a lipid nanoparticle layer, into your cells, which then are programmed to produce the coronavirus spike proteins. How is this not gene therapy?
It's not gene therapy because it does not change your genes or interact with your DNA. Gene therapy usually involves replacing or supplementing a defective gene in your genome. Here, mRNA is injected into your muscle cells, just like a normal virus would do it hijacks cellular machinery to make its encoded genome (but here just a spike protein modified to hold its conformation so your immune system can see it. It's not gene therapy.

2. The jab does not protect you from getting the virus, or from dying from it. Just look at the latest CDC data. The idea that you're 'protecting others' sounds like an excuse to engage in hedonistic activities (bars, clubs, concerts, etc.).
The vax protects the great majority from getting the virus, but a certain sub-population can get and carry it regardless. I think the latest numbers are still 86% get immunity and the remainder can be breakthru infections. Nevertheless, people that have the vax but get a breakthru infection have very low rates of serious illness from the virus, i.e. much more likely to be a minor nuisance rather than something that sends you to the hospital.

3. The coercion, both implicit and explicit, which is being forced upon unvaccinated doesn't bother you? This is clearly a precursor of the Mark of the Beast.

Yes, the coercion bothers me. Nevertheless, i determined for me the benefits were worth the risk. No, this is not "clearly" a precursor of the mark of the beast, which is 666, indicating Nero according to the Church's historical interpretations. I don't see an eschatological event here.

4. Your foolish bishops who are pro-vaxx have ZERO idea what they're talking about. Have they consulted Sucharit Bhakdi, Luc Montagnier, Byram Bridle, Robert Malone, and other top virologists who have warned against the vaccine and its dangers?
I don't know who the bishops consulted, but just dismissing them as "foolish" of course does not accomplish anything or further your anti-vax stance. Where does the authority of these people you name to shepherd the Christian community and make moral determinations such as this come from? Whether the virus is safe is a separate issue, I was addressing whether it is morally acceptable to receive the vaccine. I respect the right of anyone to decline the vax and am completely against vaccine passports and such things.

5. Read Matthew 16:23.
Sure. "Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.” I don't see the relevance. I think the more relevant passage is Matthew 16:19-20.
 

Eusebius Erasmus

Pelican
Orthodox
It's not gene therapy because it does not change your genes or interact with your DNA. Gene therapy usually involves replacing or supplementing a defective gene in your genome. Here, mRNA is injected into your muscle cells, just like a normal virus would do it hijacks cellular machinery to make its encoded genome (but here just a spike protein modified to hold its conformation so your immune system can see it. It's not gene therapy.

"Gene therapy can be most simply defined as the genetic modification of cells to produce a therapeutic effect," and therefore the mRNA vaccines are gene therapy, since they modify your cells' genetic material to produce spike proteins.

The vax protects the great majority from getting the virus, but a certain sub-population can get and carry it regardless. I think the latest numbers are still 86% get immunity and the remainder can be breakthru infections. Nevertheless, people that have the vax but get a breakthru infection have very low rates of serious illness from the virus, i.e. much more likely to be a minor nuisance rather than something that sends you to the hospital.

This is just ignorance on your part, and I notice that you do not cite your claims.

The vaccines do not prevent against spread, nor they do protect against mortality. This is clear not only from clinical trials, but also from recent data: 74% of those recently infected with COVID-19 in Massachusetts were fully vaccinated.


This is in a state in which 63% of eligible residents are fully vaccinated. In other words, the vaccines don't work at all. They're duds.

Yes, the coercion bothers me. Nevertheless, i determined for me the benefits were worth the risk. No, this is not "clearly" a precursor of the mark of the beast, which is 666, indicating Nero according to the Church's historical interpretations. I don't see an eschatological event here.

The Mark of the Beast is 666. The pre-cursor or "type" of the Mark is not necessarily 666, and the vaccine is definitely a precursor of the Mark, since it is tied to the buying and selling of goods, mostly of the hedonistic kind.

I don't know who the bishops consulted, but just dismissing them as "foolish" of course does not accomplish anything or further your anti-vax stance. Where does the authority of these people you name to shepherd the Christian community and make moral determinations such as this come from? Whether the virus is safe is a separate issue, I was addressing whether it is morally acceptable to receive the vaccine. I respect the right of anyone to decline the vax and am completely against vaccine passports and such things.

For Catholics, only the Pope is infallible -- and only when he speaks ex Cathedra. Your run-of-the-mill bishops are 100% foolish when it comes to vaccines and providing guidance to the faithful. The fact that they have not consulted expert virologists who are independent of Big Pharma demonstrates that they are ignorant (i.e. NOT good shepherds), and you are under no obligation to listen to their vaccine advice.
 
Last edited:

SeekingTruth

Kingfisher
It's not gene therapy because it does not change your genes or interact with your DNA.

Dr Malone, the inventor of the mRNA therapy, openly calls it “gene therapy”.

 
Last edited:
Top