“The most offensive is not their lying – one can always forgive lying – lying is a delightful thing, for it leads to truth – what is offensive is that they lie and worship their own lying.” ~ Fyodor Dostoevsky
INTRODUCTION
Most of you will recognize the title as a paraphrase of Mark Twain’s (or was it Disraeli’s?) aphorism about statistics. In this piece I’m using it to counter an internet falsehood about vaccines for the Wuhan flu. There are lots of reasons to choose not to be vaccinated, but let’s use the right ones if we’re not to look like fools. I don’t intend to be a Snopes (and wasn’t one of the original authors of that “fact-finding” blog caught out in lies?). However, in this instance I’m with the anti-vaxxers and want to preserve the force of their arguments by weeding out “misinformation.”
THE MISINFORMATION AND MY RESPONSE
Here’s the misinformation, which I came across in a message thread. It says liposomes used for covid-19 vaccines are magnetized and therefore cause damage if a vaccinated person undergoes an MRI. Here was my response:
“As a quondam MRI physicist, supervised installation of 1st MRI at tertiary care rural hospital in 1985, prior to that, spent sabbatical semester at Cleveland Clinic teaching radiologists about MRI blacks and whites, I say that article is nonsense. Vaccine phospholipid vesicles are not paramagnetic or ferromagnetic/ferrimagnetic. There are lots of reasons to oppose vaccination; let’s not seem foolish by believing everything on the internet.”
I believe the misinformation derives from the following two links: one, an article on use of paramagnetic iron oxide nano-particles to enhance vaccine effectiveness, published in 2014 (see here); the other, using as a springboard a conjecture about “magnetic hydrogels.”
MISINFORMATION IS BAD, ON THE RIGHT AND ON THE LEFT
Whatever one’s political leanings, one should seek to act on what is most likely to be true, not on pure conjecture. Misinformation about vaccines is as bad as misinformation about anthropic global warming. My good lady bemoans that the art of critical thinking is no longer taught at higher (or even lower) educational levels. When she was teaching history at Carnegie Tech (now Carnegie-Mellon), the required history course was a series of problems, big events in Western Civilization. Students were taught to question sources, the reasoning path from assumptions to conclusions, and ramifications. And I’ve always questioned prior work, and occasionally laid a brick in the building of science, by so doing. (And others have on work I’ve done.)
So here’s to critical thinking, no matter what the political or religious stance.
I am all about finding the bad information and pointing it out. Iron sharpens iron, or something like that. 😀
Something that’s kind of reassuring– there are multiple groups that are deliberately going out to post comments and even articles to deliberately screw with their opposition.
Sometimes they’re obvious– usually when they go for a longer game and the, um, gaps in their knowledge of their opponents becomes clear.
There are lies, damned lies, then there are fact checkers!
BTW, meant to say in the article: here’s the difference between misinformation and lies–the liar doesn’t believe what he says is true; the one giving misinformation doesn’t know what he says is false.
A good distinction to make.
Thank you
There are lots of reasons to mistrust the push to vaccinate. No matter how smart and educated we are, we are fooled by the Diabolical if we don’t look at the real bottom line.
I have concerns about the sacredness of my (and your) body, human dignity, freedom, etcetera, about the use (misuse) of my body parts (and yours) to what end! ? How remote is remote participation.
We are not just using body parts as a starting point, we are also currently in real time experimenting on human young people and possibly jeopardizing fertility.
Of course their are cranks left and cranks right. We stay with the Word of God and refuse to participate in this irrational program.
We know we can do evil for a perceived “good” end- how much more pro-scripted doing evil for a bad or questionable end.
It seems silly to concern yourself about that level of misinformation when the very basis of the construction is so questionable
Like worrying about the furniture for the fifth floor when we don’t have a foundation for the building
– water torture- drip drip drip
Then flooding us with assumption that vaccine is necessary>beneficial, >a moral obligation
It is Not realistic to be fussing about the furniture or about “relative” credibility
Link copied
The FDA authorized a third dose of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines for people with compromised immune systems.
The Defender is experiencing censorship on many social channels. Be sure to stay in touch with the news that matters by subscribing to our top news of the day. It’s free.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Thursday authorized a third dose of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines for people with compromised immune systems.
Neither vaccine has yet received full FDA approval, and neither has completed late-stage clinical trials proving a third dose will boost immunity or work against COVID variants.
The amended Emergency Use Authorization allows people who have had an organ transplant, or those with a similar level of weakened immune system, to get an extra COVID vaccine dose.
The FDA did not approve a Johnson & Johnson booster, citing insufficient data.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices today voted unanimously to recommend the CDC follow the FDA’s guidance by also approving the third shots for immunocompromised patients.
Anzlyne, some people won’t accept the general arguments you give as sufficient not to be vaccinated. On the other hand they might consider specific dangers of having magnetic particles inside as sufficient. It’s not good to use a wrong reason to do a right thing, because sometimes one will use a wrong reason to do a wrong thing.
Something to consider is that misinformation like this does not always come from the right. An easy and effective rhetorical technique is to advance strawman arguments for your opposition, and then conflate all opposition with those arguments (which works even better if you are just magnifying a few cranks rather than making things up out of whole cloth.)
The most obvious example of this recently is the conflation of any failure to trust the COVID vaccines with a denial that vaccinations work for any vaccines. Another pernicious example is the conflation with ideas that the disease is entirely caused by 5G networks: I haven’t seen anyone on the right advance that idea in at least half a year, despite going to sites that most definitely have cranks (a few of whom even push the magnetism idea.) But it is routinely trotted out as a “common” reason that people won’t get vaccinated, and there are always a few useful idiots/controlled opposition shills to point to in order to “justify” this characterization of the right.
What this means is that while it is important to not let lies stand, regardless of where they come from, it is always worth considering if it is actually worth it to attack any specific lie. For example, there are definitely people who think that the Earth really is flat (even if most of that movement is just ironic memes.) How many of us spend any effort trying to debunk them? If we don’t run into anyone like that, probably none of us.
If the media highlights a falsehood from crank groups “on the right” and our only response is to say “yes, those guys are wrong and crazy” all it does is further the media’s narrative of “people who disagree with us are wrong and crazy.” The better response is “who cares about those guys? No one even know who they were until you did a story on them.”
That being said, the magnetic vaccines idea is right on the line in that many people have legitimately fallen for it, but it is still being overexaggerated for rhetorical points.
Something to consider is that misinformation like this does not always come from the right. An easy and effective rhetorical technique is to advance strawman arguments for your opposition, and then conflate all opposition with those arguments (which works even better if you are just magnifying a few cranks rather than making things up out of whole cloth.)
The infamously popular “debunking” of vaccines having baby-parts in them when you just specifically explained how fetal cell lines work….
Oh, and watching the mutation of the 5G claim was interesting.
I watched people point out that those areas where Chinese companies sent in workers from China to do some of the install had outbreaks of COVID, even when the workers got there before the disease was officially recognized– that turned into “caused by 5G” from secondhand parties after screaming “racist” wasn’t good enough, uniformly to mock those who recognized disease vectors exist, and there’s a few other interesting mutations.
It’s hard to argue with people who can’t figure out what you say when it’s there in black and white.
“We know we can do evil for a perceived “good” end”
This is not correct.
From the CCC: “1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery.” And
“1759 “An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.”
Dr Kurland, I appreciate your concern that people do right things for right reason. We agree on the importance of right reason.
At the same time If people do a good thing even if their reasoning was faulty (or Even merely intuitive) they still did a good thing.
.
Is it elevating the acceptability of the vaccine when we argue about purity of information despite the fact that we really don’t have solid information from ANY source, no good information. ?
So far, looking at what is available now, we only come up with questions, not answers- certainly not from the makers or the sellers or the range of scientists opining.
Meanwhile people are making PUSHED decisions. So many prople will just do as told.. and think “like this, like that” trusting bad information because all our information at this point is questionable.
The need for a an unproven vaccine (not really worthy of the name) for a basically survivable virus is false. Why?
I know that we each have to be our own advocate and forage for information, but when I go to the doctor and he tells me he required everyone in his office to be vaccinated, he is telling me and his patients he thinks this vaccine is necessary and important. Helping to carry the misinformation forward
You are right John F Kennedy
I saw my typo but did not go back to edit 🤪
We know we can Not fo evil…
Do
I’m glad that I’m not the only victim of “fat finger syndrome”. That was an old term invented by the old “Ma Bell” officials during the early days of push button dialing. My excuse is small buttons and screen of my phone.
FEAR… PANIC… SUSPICION… I see it on both sides of the COVID subject. Whether it’s the distant person wearing a mask on a windy beach (Really?), or the person adamantly against ever ever ever wearing a mask. (Really?) I feel like I’m in a bad scary movie where too many people make bad decisions. I hate those movies. I can’t watch them. I say: “I would rather be there facing the monster then watching this”, and I mean it. And I love Van Helsing movies, what’s better than thinking through a problem and defeating evil….
That aside.
What is the probability of contracting this COVID virus? N=1
Given enough time, and the right conditions, we are all going to come in contact with this virus or a variant or a vaccine. That might sound like hyperbole, it’s not. Animal reservoirs, related to the common cold, this thing is here to stay. It’s not going away. Can I prove that? No, it’s by inspection.
What are the risks:
1- Short term risk of COVID increases with age and/or co morbidities.
2. Long term risk of COVID (damage) same as above, but also some chance for all others.
3. Short term risk of vaccine, very low.
4. Long term risk of vaccine, I think low, because I think we would know by now.
So what are the options?
A- choose to be infected by a virus genetically engineered by the communist party of china, that surely used fetal tissue in development and testing, and take our chances.
B – choose the standard development J&J vaccine that used fetal tissue in development and testing.
C – choose either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines that were genetically engineered by some of the best minds (not Fauci!) in the US, which did not use fetal tissue in development but did in testing.
Make sure you factor in all risks, for you and yours. Good Luck.
It’s a free country. I’ll support your decision, no matter what it is.
Just promise me you’ll calmly think this through. I hate bad scary movies.
David WS you state #4-“Long term risk of vaccine, I think low,because I think we would know by now.”
Long term risks aren’t to be measured by a few months, but over the course of several years. It’s widely acknowledged that virtually nothing is known about long term health risks. The FDA testing protocol for these products runs through at least 2022. So no, we probably wouldn’t “know by now”. No reason to assume we would for a product that has been marketed for only 8 months or so.
Further, are you getting accurate information on the health impact of these products? How can you be sure? Are autopsies being done as a matter of course on those who have died after receiving a shot? Is there any detailed reliable follow up for those complaining of adverse reactions; information subject to proper peer review? I don’t think so, but perhaps others have accurate information in that regard. The voluntary reporting system (VAERS) as a whole appears to be quite inadequate for helping to attain accurate information. Some estimates are that a very low percentage of adverse effects are actually reported.
Before anyone takes an immorally produced product; something true for all products now available; and one that is still not FDA approved, I’d recommend they get truthful answers addressing these concerns.
JFK-
You are answering on a touch screen?
#impressed
I hate those things! As in, I’ve found ways to do most of my phone messaging with a real keyboard level hate those things!
or the person adamantly against ever ever ever wearing a mask. (Really?)
I have yet to see someone argue against masks ever for anyone, but I do know several people who cannot mask, and up until two years ago this was not just known it was completely uncontroversial. To the tune of masks were not used in the NICU unless the doctors were working intimately, directly and extensively on a child.
Up until it became fashionable to force masking, the costs associated with masking was also recognized to the point that OSHA banned masking for an extended period of time, especially while doing heavy labor. Friend of a friend is recovering from a stroke caused by thickened blood– a known effect of long term oxygen deprivation. (BrickMuppet, I asked for prayers for him earlier.)
What is the probability of contracting this COVID virus? N=1
Given enough time, and the right conditions, we are all going to come in contact with this virus or a variant or a vaccine.
Again– it is a known reality that viruses mutate to milder forms; that is why most of us have had the virus that caused the Spanish Flu, yet did not have the effects that were observed in 1918.
The sudden loss of that basic knowledge, which was widely spread just a few years ago in all the historical look-backs at the Spanish Flu, is another puzzling matter.
The corona virus is not an unknown factor; that family of germs makes up between ten and twenty-five percent of cases of “the cold.” Trying to whip up fear because the ancestor of one was feared is not a good support for vaccination.
3. Short term risk of vaccine, very low.
Compared to what?
Because compared to the standard of vaccines which have been approved for non-emergency human use in the last few decades, this claim is at best not well supported, and may be flatly false.
Especially troubling is the medical officials who are publicly stating that they are not reporting adverse effects, because it is apolitically hot topic. I know two women who lost pregnancies after they were responsible and vaccinated; had they known about the unusual number of women who are showing up at women’s health practices to be checked up because of unusual menstruation patterns after being vaccinated, they may have chosen differently. A family friend is in the hospital with heart issues. They can’t figure out what the cause could be, there’s no family history of it, and he’s had nothing “interesting” health-wise— other than living in Washington State and thus facing massive pressure to vaccinate and mask.
4. Long term risk of vaccine, I think low, because I think we would know by now.
As Faithful stated, your framework for “long term” is too short for the context of FDA approved vaccines. Usually they look at three to five years– in the case of COVID, they didn’t even finish the short term studies, since the control group was vaccinated.
Faithful,
Consider that know things with varying degrees of assurance. Something’s we 1-know are probably true, others are 2- known beyond a reasonable doubt and 3- few do we absolutely know.
Also consider that one should weigh the risks of long term COVID damage to long term risk of the vaccine. While each is known imperfectly, I think we can weigh accurately when we weigh them against-each-other. (Like comparing weights on a scale when balanced against each other while actually not knowing how each weighs.) I personally know people who have died of COVID and are experiencing long term effects. I know of none with a reaction to the vaccine; they are older.
In my age group (60) I believe the short&long term risk of COVID is greater than the shorty&long term risk of the vaccine.
And I would rather choose to receive a vaccine that was not produced by fetal tissue (but tested I know), rather than receive a virus produced by the CCP almost certainly by application and testing on fetal tissue.
I wish in a perfect world I would not have to make that choice, and/or know it perfectly, but we don’t live in one -yet.
Side note: As I recall from the history, it took several decades after Jenner for smallpox vaccine to become common place. Probably a lesson in there for some folks today who are skeptical of new things.
Foxfier,
We could argue this until the cows come home, but it takes two or more persons to argue – and I’m deciding to tap out.
My risk calculation will be different than another persons’. For example women have a less chance of being hurt by and/or dying of COVID, but they still can.
Everyone has to make a call, yes or no, just make sure you make one because not making one -is making one.
I have a bicuspid aortic valve with stenosis and an aneurysm above the valve. Otherwise healthy, heart included.. But I have put off the op for a year, and now soon, COVID movie behind, I’m going in to be cracked open like a walnut to receive a bovine tissue aortic valve. A large one in case I need another by TAVR later. And that’s the cow I need to focus on.
David,
It’s okay to argue for the vaccine, because there are valid arguments either way. But it’s clear that you are willing to accept weak arguments if they support your desired vaccination conclusion.
For example, you say that we can “weigh accurately” the long-term risks of COVID and the vaccines. Since there is no “long term” the vaccines yet, we have no data on that, and even for COVID there are very few people in the “long term” post-infection. Since we have nearly no information about the risks of either, the best we can do is to appeal to ignorance and the principle of parsimony in our judgment. That is, we treat it as equally likely that either is more dangerous in the long term because we do not have information to say that one is more dangerous than the other.
But wait, you do have information: that you know a few people experiencing long term effects. But while this may persuade you personally, it is extremely weak information generally. For example, it is true that I do not know anyone personally who has had long term effects (i.e. beyond a month) from COVID, including my grandmother in her nineties. Would you then accept my testimony as evidence that “we now can accurately predict that there is no need to worry from long-term effects of COVID?” Of course you wouldn’t.
@ David WS-“And I would rather choose to receive a vaccine that was not produced by fetal tissue (but tested I know), rather than receive a virus produced by the CCP almost certainly by application and testing on fetal tissue.”
Everyone must make a difficult personal choice and you’ve made yours. As I think I posed to you elsewhere, if these products were produced and/or tested, not from fetal tissue harvested from organs of aborted babies, but from slave laborers who were murdered in the process, would you still take it? In my opinion probably not as no manufacturer would dare to knowingly produce such a product. Why treat aborted babies any differently? Aren’t they equally human per the teachings of Christ our Lord?
David WS-
You made assertions, several of which were incorrect.
I corrected them.
That isn’t an argument, and it has nothing to do with what you choose to do; your personal choices were not the subject. You implied that the subject was using accurate information to avoid fear, panic and suspicion.
So I provided accurate information.
“The association with aborted fetal cells and these RNA vaccines is so distant that I don’t think you would find a Catholic moral theologian that would say there’s a problem at all,” Deacon Lanciotti said.“
https://www.ncregister.com/news/what-connection-does-moderna-s-vaccine-have-to-aborted-fetal-tissue
I dislike saying that someone is mendaciously uninformed before making a public statement, but seeing as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith recognized the concerns as legitimate, never mind the large number of Catholic moral theologians who recognized and elaborated on why it is a concern, the Deacon is either being misquoted or is horrifically incorrect in his statement.
Sure, there is a difference between “is actively produced in children murdered for the purpose,” vs “was developed using children murdered for the purpose,” but the specific moral consideration is if the harm from appearing to accept the murder of children for medical advantage is worth the benefit.
No matter if a Deacon– or any other individual!– finds themselves believing that it is worth the cost, the consideration does not go away.
To pick up on Foxfier’s point, would anyone consider it “worth the cost” if the victims were not helpless, unseen, unborn babies, but rather slave laborers in a concentration camp? I seriously doubt that these products would ever, see the light of day. Their development and use would be unthinkable. I doubt if anyone of good will or any religious leader would in any way shape or form endorse them it by chance they were made. So why are they unborn to be thought of any differently? Doesn’t our faith teach us that they have equal human dignity with the same rights from the moment of conception? Do we truly believe that or not?
I can see now that persons are so locked into their positions that nothing can dissuade them otherwise.
But also something else. There’s no recognization of authority in the church.
A visiting priest sermon at last Sunday’s gospel said the demon ready to devour the Christ child was a just symbol and global warming may have caused earthquakes in Haiti.
And the traditional podcast I listen to is now saying that if you don’t pray the rosary in Latin you’re really not praying it and the luminous mysteries are illegitimate.
“The fundamental reason for considering the use of these vaccines morally licit is that the kind of cooperation in evil (passive material cooperation) in the procured abortion from which these cell lines originate is, on the part of those making use of the resulting vaccines, remote.”
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20201221_nota-vaccini-anticovid_en.html
I can see now that persons are so locked into their positions that nothing can dissuade them otherwise.
Yes, you see at least one of them in the mirror.
Both Faithful and myself offered statements of fact; in return, you offered a passive-aggressive personal attack.
That shows that whatever your motivation may be, your conclusion is not one which will respond to facts or reason.
David WS-
Yes, that would be the statement that I mentioned the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith having offered.
The one that goes on for paragraphs about the fact that this is cooperation with evil– that is an area in which they have legitimate authority, as it is explaining a moral teaching of the Catholic church. The degree and considerations when cooperating with evil, in specific instances given specific facts.
The one that lays out statements of medical fact — which we are not obligated to regard more highly than our observed evidence, as they are at best working from the same information we have. As has been repeatedly explained on this very thread, your assumption that COVID even approaches the Spanish Flu in seriousness when it started, much less at the current point in time, is at best flawed.
You may wish to inform yourself on the advisability of attempting to force others to accept and assert your personal judgement on prudential moral conclusions. (Speaking of Church authority.)
“You may wish to inform yourself on the advisability of attempting to force others to accept and assert your personal judgement on prudential moral conclusions.”
Foxfier, This ENTIRE thread has been a defense of mine against the accusation of direct, unnecessary, uninformed,.. cooperation with moral evil.
David WS-
You came in halfway through the comment thread, shifted it, and laid in with with both fists against inaccurate claims that spread fear….
while making inaccurate claims to incite fear.
When you were provided with statements of fact which did not support your desired result, you avoided either evidence or rationality in favor of personal attacks. Repeatedly.
If you feel personally attacked, that may be a side-effect of your chosen style of argumentation.
None of that is true.
DAVID WS
None of that is true.
Not only is it true, but it is objectively, visibly true.
The article was posted on the 15th, and your first comment is on the 16th, comment number 15.
You opened with:
FEAR… PANIC… SUSPICION…
…
, what’s better than thinking through a problem and defeating evil….
You then offered a four point statement, of which half are objectively false in the context of FDA approved vaccines, and which included an unstated, in accurate assumption about the nature of the virus known as COVID-19.
Following that, you gave a three point series of choices, of which the first was false and conflated choosing material cooperation with evil and being a victim of the fruit of material cooperation with evil, and neglected to include the option of waiting for an ethically developed option, expected about the end of this year.
At no point after these corrections were made did you respond with notably better rationality than in the comment I quote at the beginning of this.
My intent was to try to help end FEAR… PANIC… SUSPICION…
I don’t think I failed.
My intent was to try to help end FEAR… PANIC… SUSPICION…
I don’t think I failed.
In spite of pursuing your goal via falsehoods which, if believed, would incite fear and panic people into choosing the decision you made; when that failed and you were faced with objectively true statements that you could not refute, you attempted to bully others into compliance or at least silence.
Pretty much sums up the general push of the conversation, sadly.
I’m reminded of a quote by Mark Twain, to the effect of never make the mistake of arguing with certain people.
David,
The statements from the Church is that taking the vaccines is cooperation with evil. In fact the very document you link to classifies it as “passive material cooperation” and “remote cooperation.” But that is still a cooperation with evil.
Now remote cooperation with evil is different than direct formal cooperation, and can be justified under certain circumstances. For example, suppose that your local grocery store proudly talks about using his profits to fund abortions. If you buy food from his store it is a remote cooperation with evil. If that is the only option you have to feed your family, it could justified. If there is another grocery store following Catholic principles two blocks down the street and you refuse to visit it because you’d rather not drive as far, then your remote cooperation with the abortion grocery store cannot be justified and you may be sinning by shopping there.
Now getting to the vaccines that used cell lines from aborted children for testing. The Church has made it clear that taking them is remote cooperation with evil. But can it be justified? It would depend on the necessity of taking them. You’ve dismissed any consideration of necessity as being something that is irrelevant because the Church has already settled the matter. But let’s look at the document you linked to. The only endorsement of the vaccines is given in the second point:
In this sense, when ethically irreproachable Covid-19 vaccines are not available (e.g. in countries where vaccines without ethical problems are not made available to physicians and patients, or where their distribution is more difficult due to special storage and transport conditions, or when various types of vaccines are distributed in the same country but health authorities do not allow citizens to choose the vaccine with which to be inoculated) it is morally acceptable to receive Covid-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses in their research and production process.
Note that it does not say “morally required” but “morally licit.” The majority of the rest of the document talks about how these vaccines are on morally shaky ground, and that it would be preferable for vaccines to be developed that didn’t make use of aborted children (I’ll note that people like you are not calling for such vaccines to be made.) Point 5 even makes clear Practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary. It does say that there is a moral obligation to take steps to avoid infecting others, but no where does it say that the step taken must be vaccination. Furthermore early on it is said that We do not intend to judge the safety and efficacy of these vaccines, although ethically relevant and necessary, as this evaluation is the responsibility of biomedical researchers and drug agencies Obviously if a vaccine does not have high efficacy it is not a good measure to take to stop the spread of a disease, or at least not the only thing that should be done. If it is not safe then it could do more harm than good.
Did you even read the document? It does not support any of what you are saying. You are just holding it up as a shield to try to end the conversation that you refuse to have, even as you blame everyone else for not talking.
The authority I bow to is Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, ascended into heaven, Lord of Heaven and Earth to whom every tongue shall confess and every knee shall bow.
I would like to hear you make the same profession of faith. Not a dodge like “I believe the church, you don’t.” Say who you serve.
I believe in Christ, His Church and the authority of the Congregation of the Faith, document in entirety.
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20201221_nota-vaccini-anticovid_en.html
You?
Congratulations on being the first person I have seen to actually swear loyalty to Christ after using His moral authority to further your agenda. I believe that you are actually a faithful Christian.
But major demerits for implying that I don’t follow Christ or that document from the Vatican in direct response to a post where I explicitly swear allegiance to Christ and point out how the document you linked before, and are linking again, does not contradict with my position, but does contradict yours.
You may be a Christian, but you are also an obstinate liar who thinks nothing of defaming your brothers in Christ.
I prefer moral monster for having been vaccinated..
Please make a note of that. Thank you.
I prefer moral monster for having been vaccinated..
Please make a note of that. Thank you.
Your vaccination status has nothing to do with your lies, false witness, and personal attacks, David WS.
“Your vaccination status has nothing to do with your lies, false witness, and personal attacks, David WS.”
Thank you.
Foxfier,
As applied to someone at risk…
Which, if any, of these statements are possibly “lies and false witness?”
– The short term risk of vaccine is less than short term risk of COVID, True..
– The long term risk of COVID damage is greater than the long term risk of vaccine,
true beyond a reasonable doubt.
– Prudentially one may take the vaccine in good conscience, preferably Moderna to J&J. True. As Moderna was not developed in an immoral way.
– The virus itself was developed and tested using fetal tissue, true beyond a reasonable doubt.
Bearing False Witness would include things like repeatedly suggesting (and sometimes outright saying) that your opponents are in conflict with Church teaching, even after it has been demonstrated that they are not.
It would be compounding of that false witness to say that you were being accused of bearing false witness because of your opinions on health issues.
David WS-
You are welcome to go over the point by point explanation of your lies, false witness and personal attacks if you have questions; attempting to further abuse charity does you no favors.