Suudy....I understand peoples faith, and have the ultimate respect for it. I wasn't a victim so to speak. Not the type of victim from priest to alter boy or just boy. I will say my problems probably started when I was 8 and I had to make up sins to confess sins for a ritual. didn't make sense at 8, 18, 28, 38, 48 or 58. That was the start. Then goes down from there for me.
If you were taught to "make up sins to confess" then it seems you suffered the poor catechesis problem I mentioned. I don't know about you, but I can think of things daily that I have done that damage my relationship with God, my relationship with others, and ultimately lead me away from God. I have no problem finding things I need to confess. You are indeed fortunate if you don't have anything.
And I think your statement is part of the problem. Millions wait for the pope to speak. If he doesn't speak for the church, or doesn't always as the leader of the church speak for it, why do people listen. How do we know when he speaks that is legit and when he speaks it is not? Those are problems I have, especially in rolo's case.
The Church teaches this. Unfortunately many in the US and elsewhere in the world are not taught the distinction between a formal teaching and an opinion. While certainly we ought to take the Pope's comments seriously, we must weigh it against the formal teachings of the Church.
Edit: One comparison I might make that I think explains it well. When the Queen (or now King) speaks, does she/he speak in an official capacity? Are those words to be taken as law? Or what about the POTUS? If Biden says an AR-15 should be illegal, does that make them illegal? Similarly with the Pope. When he speaks in an interview or gives a speech, it isn't as if he's creating any legal or moral obligation.
First, how many people heard the Pope himself or read his comments directly with respect to COVID? Did you? I didn't. I heard only the media reports of what he said. And this, I think is the fundamental problem. The media (and I mean *all* media, left and right) emphasize what they care about. And they never quote the entire statement, but only the pieces they care about. And I can't even find links to his actual remarks on any of the articles. They all just lead with "Pope Francis Monday said ...." or "On Monday, Pope Francis said ...." I still can't find his actual remarks.
So, when the Pope speaks, do people hear what he said? Or what the media reported he said?
In this COVID example, the CDF clearly stated the conditions for the vaccine. Here's point #5 from their document:
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.
When the Pope made his statements back in January, he was speaking to the common good. That was consistent with this statement from the CDF. He did not mention that the vaccine "must be voluntary." But much of media latched onto his statements about the common good and inferred some sort of moral obligation, despite the CDF saying exactly the opposite.
I am all for Rolo having these convictions, but his convictions only go so far. Shouldn't the knowledge that he thinks he did was Jesus wanted him to do be reward enough, plus the 6 mil he already got?
So let me ask you, if rolo had a manageable and treatable cancer, does he forgo treatment because they come from stems cells from the 70's? Many of the cancer drugs are from this source. Does he feel so strongly he will die not to have the use of stem cells from 1970?
This is not as black and white as you paint it. It is as much a balance of risk as it is conviction. All of would like to think that were we stranded in the mountains in a snow storm that we wouldn't resort to cannibalism. But can you really say that your convictions would withstand such a difficult situation?
For my part, I'd like to think I too would make such a commitment. We have worked with all our pediatricians to ensure that all vaccines our children have received are not derived from cells of aborted children. We were lucky that the vaccines were available that are no longer available in the US (though they are available in Canada) for our children. I would like to think were that not possible at the time, we'd travel to Canada or find some other way around it. But we didn't have to make that choice.
And for me, if the only option for cancer treatment were stem-cells from aborted children, yes, I'd like to think I would deny it. How much easier it is to make that choice when being vaccinated against something that is very low risk for someone of his health and age?
But I would say that given he was willing to give-up a huge contract because of his convictions should be evidence of his sincerity. You make it clear in your final statement below that you are are willing to do anything for money. I think we should be glad he isn't.
Awful hard to find out what is in someone's heart. That is why the courts will use past behaviors to determine that best. Yo know there was a football player last year who I am sure wasnt vaxed. Family devout Catholics. They go to church every day. Hard to argue with their faith. But I do know the kids to play high school sports in their local area they had to be vaxed for other stuff... so it sure makes it a mess.
And there are alternatives that are not derived from aborted children. Vaccines aren't the problem. Vaccines derived from aborted children are the problem. But you also need to take into account knowledge. Are all of these devout Catholic families even aware of the issue? Have they taken the time to look? Remember sin requires three things: grave matter, full knowledge, and full consent.
I also get the point where these kids are asked to sacrifice stuff for their team. IE family time. Their health. Heck Gesser couldnt even stand and took an injection. And there are others that held their nose for the team. So we will see what happens to Rolo. But my ethics...I would have taken a shot of estrogen to get paid 3.3 a year...and my wife would have administered it....
I'm glad Rolo wasn't quite so willing to sell himself. But it's about risk.
If a yearly shot of estrogen is all that is required to get a $3.3M paycheck, I'd do it. But if it required me to get daily estrogen shots and change my sex, I would not.
If I had to walk on my hands to the office everyday, I'd do it. But if I had to cut my legs off and not use a wheelchair, I would not.
And I'm sure there's something you wouldn't do, even for $3.3M.
For some, use of vaccines from aborted children is a line they will not cross. Not even for $3.3M. That fact that you are willing to do it speaks only to your convictions, not theirs.
www.espn.com
