Friday, March 29, AD 2024 2:17am

The Church Has Our Backs

In the target sights of the higher clerics and their paid lay minions.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
17 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Steve Phoenix
Steve Phoenix
Tuesday, August 3, AD 2021 3:00am

“…A moral obligation to get vaccinated..(?)”

Really? An Emergency Use Authorization “vaccine?” “A moral obligation?”

No “moral obligation” to condemn public officials who support abortion though? Nor no moral obligation not to vote for them?

No moral obligation to condemn the continued creep of big government for greater power, greater debt, greater control over the individual?

No moral obligation of clergy—and not just secular clergy—to live simply and avoid lavish vacations, luxury vehicles, pricey personal possessions, and spending habits?

And so it is the “morally obliged”blindness of our Church leadership grows each day.

David WS
David WS
Tuesday, August 3, AD 2021 5:12am

The government is trying to shame those that aren’t vaccinated for the continued existence of the virus, but if they really wanted to eliminate the virus there should have been a stockpile of the vaccinations and a massive program to inoculate all at once, shock the virus and eliminate it. Once again we’re being gaslighted for bureaucratic incompetence.

David WS
David WS
Tuesday, August 3, AD 2021 5:16am

This is a coronavirus. Like the common cold it’s almost surely a slippery critter. Vaccination is a Personal decision based on risk assessment. We’re going to have to live with this thing. But we don’t have to put up with the political shenanigans over something that certainly now it’s not that deadly but covers for the Biden administration of failures.

Elaine Krewer
Admin
Tuesday, August 3, AD 2021 6:09am

I could have sworn that the Vatican, the USCCB, the National Catholic Bioethics Center and others with some authority in this field had repeatedly stated that Catholics do NOT have a moral obligation either to get vaccinated or to refuse vaccination. Leaving aside the fact that these vaccines are still officially “experimental” and legally CANNOT be forced on anyone, I think there are some states/countries in which a conscience exemption from vaccination can only be granted if the religious body to which you belong teaches as a general principle that vaccination is wrong. It can’t be granted on an individual basis. It could be that under NY law, unless the Vatican or some other Church authority had flatly stated that it was wrong for ALL Catholics to take the COVID-19 vaccine, a Catholic would not be eligible for this exemption. The whole statement was obviously composed by attorneys purely as a “cover our butts so we don’t get sued” measure.

Frank
Frank
Tuesday, August 3, AD 2021 6:12am

Amen Steve and David. And did you notice the little slip-up in spelling at the end of the screenshot? Where it refers to toe CDF document on the vaccines? Looks as if the writer substituted the word “mortality” for “morality.” That should give the “COVID vaccines are intended to poison you” crowd some fun times. 😁
Sadly, I’m not at all surprised that Dolan would duck and run on this issue. He often seems to disappear when something possibly controversial is happening in his jurisdiction, as to which he might be expected to take a strong position for Church doctrine. Worst example was his complete failure in dealing with the lgbtuvwxyz takeover of the NYC St. Patrick’s Day parade. I used to think he was a real shepherd. Sigh.

Frank
Frank
Tuesday, August 3, AD 2021 6:14am

Exactly, Elaine.

Foxfier
Admin
Tuesday, August 3, AD 2021 8:21am

blink
They don’t have the authority to bind someone’s moral judgement on this– same way that they couldn’t bind someone to support capital punishment.

This is quite worrying.

MikeS
MikeS
Tuesday, August 3, AD 2021 8:23am

I think a lot of these Cardinals had more courage when they knew the pope had their back (not in the crosshairs). Disappointing, but maybe this is God’s way of showing us who’s who.

Faithful
Faithful
Tuesday, August 3, AD 2021 9:40am

Those who are “strongly pro-life and very loyal to the teachings of the faith” are being warned in this directive that our leadership will stand aside as they are potentially persecuted and subject to harassment including loss of employment, restrictions on travel and other needed services. In short those who are “strongly pro-life” and “very loyal” to the teachings of our faith are on their own, though in truth they are not. They will have God to bless, guide, and protect them. But what does it say of those who would abandon them?

Foxfier
Admin
Tuesday, August 3, AD 2021 10:31am

I can’t find a statement by the Pope, but here’s CftDotF statement:
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20201221_nota-vaccini-anticovid_en.html

It’s a pretty good illustration of why individual moral judgement can’t be bound, especially when there’s a… ah… notable lack of certainty in the information on which a judgement is based.

Jason
Jason
Tuesday, August 3, AD 2021 11:20am

The sadly amusing thing about this document is that it appeals to Pope Francis to assert that the jabs are a moral responsibility, but at the end refers the reader to the CDF document which contradicts that by saying they cannot be morally obligatory. The cherry on top is this is all framed in the interest of providing clarity.

What’s even more sadly amusing is that given the specific parameters and arguments the CDF document employs to outline what constitutes a situation for the moral liceity of the jabs, the moral liceity of the jabs at the present moment would be dubious at best, which could obviously not constitute a moral obligation to take the jabs but would actually constitute a moral obligation to avoid them.

But sure, clarity.

Quotermeister
Quotermeister
Tuesday, August 3, AD 2021 11:21am

RORATE CÆLI: Roberto de Mattei: Is the COVID vaccine morally licit for Catholics?
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2021/03/roberto-de-mattei-is-covid-vaccine.html

Rudolph Harrier
Rudolph Harrier
Tuesday, August 3, AD 2021 5:31pm

Nice little shell game they have between “morally licit” and “morally obligatory.” The statement is only about whether they are licit, i.e. whether it is allowable for a Catholic to opt-in to taking the vaccine.

But the context is about exemptions from vaccine mandates, meaning Catholics trying to opt-out. So the relevant question is whether it is moral for the government or businesses to force people to take an experimental vaccine and there are no “Church instructions” on that question.

Essentially the laity is asking “is it a good thing that I be forced to take it?” and the clergy are answering “it wouldn’t be a bad thing if you decided to take it on your own.” The question being answered is not the one being asked.

CAM
CAM
Tuesday, August 3, AD 2021 8:57pm

There are Catholics who are concerned about the links to aborted tissue in the vaccine or if said tissue was used in testing the vaccine, and/or who worry about the side effects (e.g. women who 20weeks or less pregnant were vaccinated and then suffered miscarriages) are looking for a religious exemption as a means to refuse the jab and keep their federal employment or employment period. The diocese of Lafayette stated that the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines were okay. The Johnson was not. However if there were no other vaccine choices it could be received.
A nurse friend said that a non RNA, non experimental vaccine w/o lines to aborted fetal tissue is being developed at Fort Dietrick and she would have no qualms receiving that vaxx..

CAM
CAM
Tuesday, August 3, AD 2021 9:05pm

From a legal stand point ” The Nuremberg Code makes FORCED vaccination illegal—along with all other forced medical procedures and therapies. The Nuremberg Code doesn’t single out vaccinations or any other procedure or therapy — it outlaws all forced procedures and therapies with the same broad brush.” Article 6, Sections 1 and 3, of the Nuremberg Code

Jason
Jason
Wednesday, August 4, AD 2021 4:22pm
Rudolph Harrier
Rudolph Harrier
Wednesday, August 4, AD 2021 5:43pm

I missed the “clearly this would be an embarrassment to the archdiocese” until I saw it in the parody. It’s even more absurd in the actual letter, if we take the fears at face value. “Imagine hundreds getting sick and perhaps even dying due to making the wrong choice on this. Just think of how bad that would make us look!” The only way it can be read as not completely heartless (just coldly politically calculated) is if the author doesn’t really believe there would be significant negative health consequences to supporting religious exemptions.

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top