Did so-called "conservative" Abortion-Tainted Vaccines Advocates "Obfuscate... ma[king] it sound as though Pope Benedict himself said it might be Permissible to use the [Abortion] Cell Lines. [When] In fact no such thing was ever said" in 2011?

 

"If there is anything to be learned from the failure of the Grisez-Finnis system it is this. Hence to retreat from the problem by attempting to locate some strand or pocket of moral discourse represents a loss of nerve in the face of the question. Rather than being a way of recovery, it is a symptom of the problem. If there are no "natures" and no proper telic completions to humanity and the goods sought, then I see no compelling reason to opt for Aristotelian virtue rather than Nietzsche." - Russel Hittinger

"So Hittinger's challenge is particularly sharp for a Thomist: if one wants to retain objective moral norms while removing or weakening the teleological metaphysics that grounds them, one has to explain what ultimately makes those norms binding rather than merely preferred."

"That also explains the phrase 'loss of nerve.' Hittinger thinks that retreating into a limited 'strand or pocket of moral discourse' avoids the hardest philosophical question instead of answering it. The real question is not merely which virtues should we cultivate? but what kind of being is the human person, and what constitutes that person's genuine completion?"

"In that sense, Hittinger is pressing the argument back toward metaphysics: moral philosophy cannot indefinitely postpone the question of human nature and finality." - ChatGPT

In 2011, Life Issues exposed so-called "conservative" influential "New Natural Law Theorist" William E. May's "obfuscat[ion]" of what Pope Benedict XVI taught about abortion-tainted vaccines. May was a close collaborator of E. Christian Brugger who currently promotes Francis's apparent heretical death penalty teachings. [http://lyceumphilosophy.com/?q=node/97]

Both belong to the Germain Grisez School of Vatican II theology which is called "The New Natural Law Theory" that advocates apparently for abortion-tainted vaccines. 

One decade ago, Life Issues reported that Brugger's close collaborator May "caus[ed] confusion and consternation for Catholics, where none existed before. Because the writer himself seems confused on Pope Benedict XVI's approved instruction, Dignitas Personae... obfuscat[ing] the intention of this passage by eliminating the entire actual quote that showed a clear reference to those insufficient statements made by ethics committees in the past. In doing so, he made it sound as though Pope Benedict himself said it might be permissible to use the [abortion]cell lines. In fact no such thing was ever said': 

Some ethicists have opined in the past that using embryonic or aborted fetal cell lines that are taken from deliberately aborted fetuses or embryos is not morally problematic since the researcher had nothing to do with the initial destruction of innocent human beings.

Perhaps this is why Mr. May chose to ignore the opening sentence in this section of Dignitas Personae that addresses this clearly and concisely:

"In this regard, the criterion of independence as it has been formulated by some ethics committees is not sufficient. According to this criterion, the use of "biological material" of illicit origin would be ethically permissible provided there is a clear separation between those who, on the one hand, produce, freeze and cause the death of embryos and, on the other, the researchers involved in scientific experimentation."

Whoa - let's stop right there for a moment and examine what the Magisterium just said versus what Mr. May wrote. The Church notes above that the "criterion of independence as it has been formulated by some ethics committees is not sufficient." They then go on to explain that "According to this criterion" - that is the criteria formulated by "some ethics committees" - not the Vatican's criteria - "the use of such "biological material" would be ethically permissible..."

But in an unusual twist, May obfuscates the intention of this passage by eliminating the entire actual quote that showed a clear reference to those insufficient statements made by ethics committees in the past. In doing so, he made it sound as though Pope Benedict himself said it might be permissible to use the cell lines. In fact no such thing was ever said.

No wonder faithful Catholics are confused! May continues to treat the above passage throughout his discourse as though the Vatican is allowing exceptions in certain cases for researchers using these cell lines, when clearly the exact opposite is noted in several places.

In an attempt to further confuse what the Church intended, May again omits key sentences that forbid the use of cell lines by researchers as he quotes sporadically from the instruction.

For example, he fails to mention these two key sentences in Dignitas Personae: (No.35, par 3)

"At times, the objection is raised that the above people of good conscience involved in research would have the duty to oppose actively all the illicit actions that take place in the field of medicine, thus excessively broadening their ethical responsibility. In reality, the duty to avoid cooperation in evil and scandal relates to their ordinary professional activities, which they must pursue in a just manner and by means of which they must give witness to the value of life by their opposition to gravely unjust laws." (emphasis added)

Again, instead of citing this properly, May omits the above and immediately jumps to the very next sentence, in which he again eliminates important criteria. May begins by writing, "In fact, 'there is a duty to refuse....'", as he continues with the text in its entirety from this paragraph.

But Dignitas Personae actually begins a bit differently in that sentence:

"Therefore, it needs to be stated that (emphasis added) there is a duty to refuse to use such "biological material" even when there is no close connection between the researcher and the actions of those who performed the artificial fertilization or the abortion, or when there was no prior agreement with the centers in which the artificial fertilization took place. This duty springs from the necessity to remove oneself, within the area of one's own research, from a gravely unjust legal situation and to affirm with clarity the value of human life. Therefore, the above-mentioned criterion of independence is necessary, but may be ethically insufficient." (Note: Original text includes above quotes and italics)

It is a slight nuance, between what May wrote and what Dignitas Personae actually stated, but it's an important one. The intention was to show that because of past confusion on whether one could use the cell lines or not, it was necessary to state it clearly, as was finally done in this Church instruction.

Now if May had stopped right there and explained that indeed, these cell lines clearly could not be used by the researchers, it might not have been necessary to cry "foul!" Instead, he then goes on to blur the distinctions Dignitas Personae made between those who use the cell lines in research and those who use vaccines produced from these cell lines, citing a 2009 article by Christian Brugger, Strengths and Weaknesses of Dignitas Personae.

In that article Brugger poses some rather absurd questions regarding the use of these cell lines, where he writes, "Would this apply to an epidemiologist in 2009 doing research on the WI lines, or to vaccines derived from those lines, given that both were taken from electively aborted fetuses? The moral wrongthe grave evil of abortionwas done nearly forty material cooperation in those immoral acts is doubtlessly remote."

Let's break this down because we are talking apples and oranges here.

First, epidemiologists do not use aborted fetal cell lines to conduct research; scientists in the lab might, but epidemiologists gather statistical data and do not conduct biological research.

Second, the Vatican has drawn sharp distinctions between those who conduct research using immoral cell lines and parents who use the vaccines produced from those cell lines in order to protect the health of their children. At no point do they use the fact that the abortions were done several years ago. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Catholic teaching knows that time does not diminish the sin, nor does it lessen the evil of the act that was performed.

Third, the Vatican did not say that, "Current material cooperation in those immoral acts is doubtlessly remote," as Brugger contends.

In fact, here is what the Pontifical Academy for Life stated on cooperation for both researchers and the parents in their 2005 dissertation, Moral Reflections on Vaccines Prepared from Cells Derived from Aborted Human Fetuses:

For Researchers (Pages 5-6)

"In the specific case under examination, there are three categories of people who are involved in the cooperation in evil, evil which is obviously represented by the action of a voluntary abortion performed by others: a) those who prepare the vaccines using human cell lines coming from voluntary abortions; b) those who participate in the mass marketing of such vaccines; c) those who need to use them for health reasons.

Firstly, one must consider morally illicit every form of formal cooperation (sharing the evil intention) in the action of those who have performed a voluntary abortion, which in turn has allowed the retrieval of foetal tissues, required for the preparation of vaccines. Therefore, whoever its intention, to the performance of a voluntary abortion with the aim of producing the above mentioned vaccines, participates, in actuality, in the same moral evil as the person who has performed that abortion. (emphasis added) Such participation would also take place in the case where someone, sharing the intention of the abortion, refrains from denouncing or criticizing this illicit action, although having the moral duty to do so (passive formal cooperation).

In a case where there is no such formal sharing of the immoral intention of the person who has performed the abortion, any form of cooperation would be material, (emphasis added) with the following specifications.

As regards the preparation, distribution and marketing of vaccines produced as a result of the use of biological material whose origin is connected with cells coming from foetuses voluntarily aborted, such a process is stated, as a matter of principle, morally illicit, (emphasis added) because it could contribute in encouraging the performance of other voluntary abortions, with the purpose of the production of such vaccines."

In fact, that last statement is exactly what has happened with new abortions and new fetal cell lines being used for future vaccines. As for the level of cooperation by parents who use the vaccines, the PAFL had a lot more to say about "remote cooperation":

For parents and physicians who use the vaccines from aborted fetal cell lines: (Page 6)

"As regards those who need to use such vaccines for reasons of health, it must be emphasized that, apart from every form of formal cooperation, in general, doctors or parents who resort to the use of these vaccines for their children, in spite of knowing their origin (voluntary abortion), carry out a form of very remote mediate material cooperation, and thus very mild, in the performance of the original act of abortion, and a mediate material cooperation, with regard to the marketing of cells coming from abortions, and immediate, with regard to the marketing of vaccines produced with such cells. The cooperation is therefore more intense on the part of the authorities and national health systems that accept the use of the vaccines. However, in this situation, the aspect of passive cooperation is that which stands out most. It is up to the faithful and citizens of upright conscience (fathers of families, doctors, etc.) to oppose, even by making an objection of conscience, the ever more widespread attacks against life and the "culture of death" which underlies them. From this point of view, the use of vaccines whose production is connected with procured abortion constitutes at least a mediate remote passive material cooperation to the abortion, and an immediate passive material cooperation with regard to their marketing. (emphasis added) Furthermore, on a cultural level, the use of such vaccines contributes in the creation of a generalized social consensus to the operation of the pharmaceutical industries which produce them in an immoral way."

Without question, the PAFL went to great lengths to describe the various levels of cooperation and how those levels are far more complicated than Brugger described for both parents and the researchers using these cell lines. It is both irresponsible and incredible that Brugger and May fail to either understand or acknowledge this.

Yet May continues to distort the facts by quoting from Berger who goes on to assert, "Is a researcher's duty to refuse to work on those materials exceptionless,[sic] even when the refusal could result in harms to the researcher and to his or her family? The text indicates that it is not. It states that "grave reasons may be morally proportionate to justify the use of such 'biological material' (n. 35)"

And while May includes it in his article, Brugger omits the real explanation that Dignitas Personae gave for such criteria. The "grave reasons that may be morally proportionate" are directed toward parents who might need to use the vaccines for their children - not the researchers!

Here is the sentence from Dignitas Personae, which immediately follows why these "grave reasons may be morally proportionate":

"Thus, for example, danger to the health of children could permit parents to use a vaccine which was developed using cell lines of illicit origin, while keeping in mind that everyone has the duty to make known their disagreement and to ask that their healthcare system make other types of vaccines available. Moreover, in organizations where cell lines of illicit origin are being utilized, the responsibility of those who make the decision to use them is not the same as that of those who have no voice in such a decision."

Note, the "responsibility of those who make the decision to use them" applies to the researchers, whereas "those who have no voice in such a decision" are the parents and physicians who use the vaccines produced from cell lines of illicit origin.

Without question, there is no "exception" anywhere in Dignitas Personae for researchers as it states:

"Therefore, it needs to be stated that there is a duty to refuse to use such "biological material" even when there is no close connection between the researcher and the actions of those who performed the artificial fertilization or the abortion, or when there was no prior agreement with the centers in which the artificial fertilization took place."

While this portion in and of itself is enough to explain the Vatican's position on researchers using these cell lines Brugger and May continue to act very mystified and confused as to what the Church says on using these cell lines, opining, "But the Instruction, following the 2005 Pontifical Academy for Life text, "Moral Reflections on Vaccines Prepared from Cells Derived from Aborted Human Fetuses," only mentions parents consenting for grave reasons to their children's immunization. Where does this leave morally conscientious researchers?"

Now certainly both May and Brugger read the documents in their entirety didn't they? Then why act as though additional clarity is still needed? But just in case anyone still has any doubts after all that has been presented here from these Vatican documents, this is what "morally conscientious researchers" are left to consider according to the PAFL:

"However, there is another aspect to be considered, and that is the form of passive material cooperation which would be carried out by the producers of these vaccines, if they do not denounce and reject publicly the original immoral act (the voluntary abortion), and if they do not dedicate themselves together to research and promote alternative ways, exempt from moral evil, for the production of vaccines for the same infections. Such passive material cooperation, if it should occur, is equally illicit."(Page 6)

Regardless of Brugger and May's personal opinions, neither the PAFL dissertation nor Dignitas Personae left any wiggle room for the researchers.[https://www.lifeissues.net/writers/vin/vin_12dignitaspersonae.html]

Note: 

ChatGPT's overview on this quote, "If there is anything to be learned from the failure of the Grisez-Finnis system it is this. Hence to retreat from the problem by attempting to locate some strand or pocket of moral discourse represents a loss of nerve in the face of the question. Rather than being a way of recovery, it is a symptom of the problem. If there are no natures, quote unquote, and no proper telic completions to humanity and the goods sought, then I see no compelling reason to opt for Aristotelian virtue rather than Nietzsche." - Russel Hittinger:

Hittinger’s point is a critique of attempts to preserve Aristotelian-Thomistic moral language after abandoning the metaphysical foundations that make it intelligible.

The argument can be reconstructed like this:

1. Aristotelian virtue ethics depends on nature.
   For Aristotle, a human being has a determinate nature, and that nature has characteristic capacities and ends (telē). Human flourishing (eudaimonia) is therefore not simply whatever a person happens to desire; it consists in the excellent realization of human capacities.
2. The moral goods have to be connected to human fulfillment.
   If we speak of goods—friendship, knowledge, justice, practical reason, etc.—as genuinely good for human beings, there has to be some account of why they are appropriate to human flourishing. Otherwise, the list of "goods" risks becoming arbitrary.
3. This is where Hittinger thinks the Grisez–Finnis project encounters a fundamental difficulty.
   Germain Grisez and John Finnis famously tried to formulate an account of basic human goods and practical reason without making their moral theory depend straightforwardly upon an Aristotelian account of natural purposes.
4. Hittinger is saying that you cannot simply retreat from metaphysics into a smaller, more modest moral vocabulary and thereby solve the problem. If the deeper account of human nature and finality has disappeared, then merely identifying certain "goods" or cultivating certain "virtues" does not explain why those goods and virtues are objectively normative.
5. Hence the deliberately provocative conclusion:

“If there are no natures … and no proper telic completions to humanity and the goods sought, then I see no compelling reason to opt for Aristotelian virtue rather than Nietzsche.”

He does not mean that Aristotle and Nietzsche are morally equivalent. He means something more fundamental: if the metaphysical account that distinguishes a genuinely human fulfillment from merely chosen goals is discarded, what principled basis remains for saying that Aristotle's conception of excellence is objectively preferable to Nietzsche's self-creation?

The deeper issue

Hittinger is therefore attacking what might be called “ethics without ontology.”

You can say:

• human beings have certain goods;
• those goods are objectively valuable;
• practical reason directs us toward them;
• certain character traits are virtues;

but eventually someone can ask:

Why these goods? Why these virtues? Why this conception of human fulfillment?

An Aristotelian answer ultimately points back to what a human being is and what constitutes the fulfillment of that nature.

Nietzsche, by contrast, explicitly rejects the idea that there is some fixed human telos which determines the proper form of human flourishing. The contrast is therefore not simply:

Aristotle: virtues are good
vs.
Nietzsche: virtues are bad.

It is:

Aristotle: human nature → characteristic powers → proper fulfillment → virtues appropriate to that fulfillment.

Nietzsche: no externally given human telos of that sort → values cannot simply be derived from a fixed account of human nature → the task becomes one of valuation/creation/transformation.

So Hittinger's challenge is particularly sharp for a Thomist: if one wants to retain objective moral norms while removing or weakening the teleological metaphysics that grounds them, one has to explain what ultimately makes those norms binding rather than merely preferred.

That also explains the phrase “loss of nerve.” Hittinger thinks that retreating into a limited "strand or pocket of moral discourse" avoids the hardest philosophical question instead of answering it. The real question is not merely which virtues should we cultivate? but what kind of being is the human person, and what constitutes that person's genuine completion?

In that sense, Hittinger is pressing the argument back toward metaphysics: moral philosophy cannot indefinitely postpone the question of human nature and finality.

Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis’s Amoris Laetitia and for the restoration of the Church.

Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He wants you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.

The Catholic Monitor

The Catholic Monitor

https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com

I ask all The Catholic Monitor readers to also pray for the end of this war. Watch "Trump Calls Putin To Get Iran War Offramp! w/ Scott Ritter" on YouTube: ...Read more Please Pray for Trump to end the Iran War: Watch "Trump Calls Putin To Get Iran War Offramp! w/ Scott Ritter" on YouTubeFranklin & Graham calls on Christians to pray for 'end to the bloodshed' ahead of Trump-Putin summit...7mo

Please Pray for Trump to end the Iran War: Watch "Trump Calls Putin To ... Daily news from a Catholic perspective on issues relating to current events in the Catholic Church, world politi...

Conclave Notes:

Has the Trad Media fallen into a COVID-like mass formation with Leo XVI? While it's humorous to see the former anti-Francis Trad pundits suddenly acting like teen age girls infatuated with Leo, it could lead to a Trojan Horse effect

It appears that a group of Bishops or Cardinals needs to give Leo XIV Dubia questions on if he still supports "Invalid and Sacrilegious" Confession

"Prevost’s reported support...allowing divorced & civilly 'remarried'...to receive Holy Communion": “Whoever…helps...promulgation of heresy…is suspected of heresy.” - The Catholic Monitor

-- Open letter urges Pope Leo XIV to correct ‘scandalous incoherence’ in Amoris Laetitia...[Wow! Even notorious Popesplainer Fr.] Harrison warns that Pope Francis taught a ‘dangerous self-contradiction’ on Communion for the divorced and ‘remarried,’ petitioning Pope Leo to correct the record. [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2025/08/open-letter-urges-pope-leo-xiv-to.html]

--  Dr. Seifert, regarded as one of the greatest living Catholic philosophers, founding Rector of the International Academy of Philosopher & friend of John Paul II, to Cardinals: INVESTIGATE FRANCIS' HERESIES, VALIDITY BEFORE THE CONCLAVE.."If Francis is found guilty of heresy or apostasy, then: - His cardinal appointments would be invalid" [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2025/04/dr-seifert-philosopher-personal-friend.html] 

-- Are the Cardinals who will participate in the upcoming conclave authentically appointed & morally justified in voting, or will the shadow of Francis's possible illegitimacy cast itself over the next papacy?  [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2025/04/are-cardinals-who-will-participate-in.html]

-- 5 Dubia Questions for 1P5's Steve Skojec & All faithful Catholics especially Francis is definitely Pope Cardinals, Bishops & pundits [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/06/5-dubia-questions-for-steve-skojec.html]

Francis Notes:

l– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:

“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.”
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)

Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said “the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church.”
[https://archive.org/stream/SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissaeAndHereticPopes/Silveira%20Implications%20of%20New%20Missae%20and%20Heretic%20Popes_djvu.txt]

– “If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/12/if-francis-is-heretic-what-should.html

– “Could Francis be a Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/03/could-francis-be-antipope-even-though.html

– If Francis betrays Benedict XVI & the”Roman Rite Communities” like he betrayed the Chinese Catholics we must respond like St. Athanasius, the Saintly English Bishop Robert Grosseteste & “Eminent Canonists and Theologians” by “Resist[ing]” him: https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/12/if-francis-betrays-benedict-xvi.html 

 –  LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:

The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”

–  On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:

“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”

– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:

“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.

Election Notes: 

– Intel Cryptanalyst-Mathematician on Biden Steal: “212Million Registered Voters & 66.2% Voting,140.344 M Voted…Trump got 74 M, that leaves only 66.344 M for Biden” [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/intel-cryptanalyst-mathematician-on.html?m=1]

– Will US be Venezuela?: Ex-CIA Official told Epoch Times “Chávez started to Focus on [Smartmatic] Voting Machines to Ensure Victory as early as 2003”: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/will-us-be-venezuela-ex-cia-official.html

– Tucker Carlson’s Conservatism Inc. Biden Steal Betrayal is explained by “One of the Greatest Columns ever Written” according to Rush: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/tucker-carlsons-conservatism-inc-biden.html?m=1

– A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020:
http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/01/a-hour-which-will-live-in-infamy-1001pm.html?m=1

What is needed right now to save America from those who would destroy our God given rights is to pray at home or in church and if called to even go to outdoor prayer rallies in every town and city across the United States for God to pour out His grace on our country to save us from those who would use a Reichstag Fire-like incident to destroy our civil liberties. [Is the [J6] DC Capitol Incident Comparable to the Nazi Reichstag Fire Incident where the German People Lost their Civil Liberties?: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/is-dc-capital-incident-comparable-to.html?m=1 and Epoch Times Show Crossroads on Capitol Incident: “Anitfa ‘Agent Provocateurs‘”:
http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/epoch-times-show-crossroads-on-capital.html?m=1] 

Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God’s Will and to do it.

Pray an Our Father now for America.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.