Posted on 08/13/2021 2:19:19 PM PDT by ebb tide
No he hasn’t. There is no requirement that any minister confirm. Your faith is YOUR OWN HEARTFELT FAITH.
If exemption not allowed, I think there is a 1st amendment suit.
Silly argument.
Did the get-away driver for the bank robber who killed a guard, kill the guard? NO!
“By accepting these deathvaxxes, one is condoning on-going murder. He is participating in accepting genocide for the sake of his own health.”
How is using a Moderna Shot accepting or condoning on-going murder?
Is it in the same way that a person who buys a shirt made in China supporting the Chinese communists and their oppression of their people?
There’s a distinction in moral arguments about remote and proximate cooperation with evil.
“Did the get-away driver for the bank robber who killed a guard, kill the guard? NO!”
And not a silly argument, because in order for the robbers to get away they needed an accomplice. That accomplice is directly assisting them.
But if say a person accepted a stolen $20 from the bank as legal tender in an exchange of goods in a shop, would that person also be liable for profiting from money that was stolen?
You need to recognize that there is a distinction between direct and indirect, remote and proximate.
Buying a shirt is quite different from the murder of babies.
But I see you’re one to rationalize murder for science’ sake.
“But I see you’re one to rationalize murder for science’ sake.”
I simply see you don’t know how moral theology works. It takes correctly connecting subjects, actions, means, and intention.
But I guess you are the type that makes broad generalizations about these things that simply are not true.
Yes, he would be liable if he was aware of the crime, just as you are aware of the deathvaxxes. It's call money laundering versus dead baby laundering.
My moral theology doesn’t condone remote participation in the murder of innocent babies.
“Yes, he would be liable if he was aware of the crime, just as you are aware of the deathvaxxes. It’s call money laundering versus dead baby laundering.”
So we’re talking about Baby laundering now? Different subject from baby murdering.
But in your instance, the driver and the shop keeper have very different crimes associated to them based on the concrete subjects we’re talking about.
Morality and Ethics btw is entirely based on rationality, because that is more about the truth than just, “muh feelings.”
American Catholics are being replaced by illegal aliens pretty quickly so the church doesn’t care about your exemption.
“My moral theology doesn’t condone remote participation in the murder of innocent babies.”
No it does not technically, but it also doesn’t condemn someone if they are remotely associated with an abortion in the same way.
So it's not a black and white issue for you? It's for one to discern, just as one discerns adultery, per Francis?
I didn't condemn anyone; I'm not Bergoglio.
I'm just pointing out that knowingly cooperating with the remote ongoing murder of babies is sinful.
A baby girl was deliberately murdered in 1973 and her kidney, along with many others, was used to develop the much vaunted HEK-293 stem cell gene.
Thousands of baby girls are being murdered, on a daily basis, to this day.
Murder is black and white to me.
The video was pointing out the difference in manufacture.
I still haven’t heard your sophist argument as to why it makes a moral difference.
I understand the difference between venial sins and mortal sins, thank-you.
But both are sins are they not?
“So it’s not a black and white issue for you? It’s for one to discern, just as one discerns adultery, per Francis?”
No issue is black and white without an argument for why it is black and white. I think if you want to talk about issues binding on the conscience of Catholics everywhere the Church rightly considers answering why it is thus. If rationally discerning the truth is Francis teaching it would be laudable. Very often I understand Pope Francis to rely on vague and undiscerned language. Which is the problem with some of what he says.
“I’m just pointing out that knowingly cooperating with the remote ongoing murder of babies is sinful.”
There is no “ongoing murder” of infants at least in the case of some of the vaccines.
“Thousands of baby girls are being murdered, on a daily basis, to this day.
Murder is black and white to me.”
And murder is wrong. But nonetheless there are distinctions as to what someone who uses a Vaccine entails. Again, nothing is simply black and white without an argument or reason why it is black and white.
How about if God says so? See the Fifth Commandment.
Do you require an argument from Him?
That God says thou shalt not murder is actually an excellent argument. Re: not murdering.
Now, what about a vaccine?
Does that statement mean you have no problem with the "ongoing murder" of those infants not for the purpose of medical research?
I have no problem with morally acceptable vaccines and I'm patiently waiting for one for COVID.
But I'm not about to rationalize sinning.
What about abortion?
Is that not murder?
Abortion is murder. Period. Church teaching is certainly clear. Also, any rational position that there is even a concept of equality among men and that murder is wrong would have to count Abortion as murder.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.