"Act of Love" or "Plain Dumb"?

Returning once again to the morality of taking "Z-Jab" out of compassion for the "community".

Call me a pessimist, but my gut is telling me that we will be called to duty, e.i. to take a jab, receive a chip implant, or accept some other dubious or harmful medical procedure on the behest of the cabal, in the very near future. And the next time around they will be even more demanding:

Lawrence Gostin @LawrenceGostin

New in @ScienceMagazine: The next pandemic may be deadlier than COVID-19. We argue that future generations deserve well-calibrated laws that empower health officials to act decisively while mindfully safeguarding constitutional rights & social values science.org/doi/10.1126/sc… 1/7

Executive health officials should have strong and flexible authority to respond to emergencies, but legislatures should be empowered to modify or end a declaration of “emergency” that goes on too long or tramples personal freedom too far.

So please pardon me for going over the moral pro and contra arguments one more time.

Here’s a fine example of blaming society at large for being selfish and uncaring by not having “vaccinated” wide or frequently enough and, in not doing that, literally exterminating old people. “Ageism and the pandemic: How Canada continues to let older adults suffer and die from COVID-19” (Prince George Citizen, 2023.04.03):

COVID-19 is the third-leading cause of death in Canada, but it’s older people who are dying. That we accept this and carry on as if the pandemic is over reveals our ageism: We don’t value older people.

It’s hard to believe that after the horror show in so many Canadian long-term care homes during early months of COVID that we have slipped back into complacency, allowing Canadians’ parents, grandparents, neighbours and friends to become infected because the rest of us won’t take simple actions. If more Canadians kept up with their vaccines, there could be less COVID-19 in the community and vulnerable populations would be better protected.

Feel any remorse yet? No? How about at least masking?

Sphagnum Moss @moss_sphagnum

Dr. #bonniehenry , I need healthcare too & I need a #maskmandate to protect me from #covid19bc I am part of your community.

Even Pope Francis keeps saying to jab whenever told to do so with whatever poison, out of love for thy neighbour:

Pope Francis praised the work of researchers and scientists in producing safe and effective Covid-19 vaccines.

There is even a Vatican coin pushing for jabbinations:

Diane Montagna @dianemontagna

#Vatican’s new 20-euro coin dedicated to “theme very close to #PopeFrancis’ heart…the need to be vaccinated…[he] has repeatedly stressed the importance of vaccination,…[& that it] is important to ‘continue efforts to immunize even the poorest peoples’.”cfn.va/en/home/2631-2…

And where the love does not suffice, jail ‘em: “More than one in four Canadians support jail time for the unvaccinated, poll finds” (The National Post, 2022.01.19):

Twenty-seven per cent of respondents said it would be acceptable to make the unvaccinated serve up to five days "as part of a jail sentence for endangering others/overwhelming (the) healthcare system."

Then there is this freak show from the Government of Canada, officially:

Ryan Gerritsen🇨🇦🇳🇱 @ryangerritsen

This guy just tweeted out a video today saying they are the party that doesn’t get people riled up. Funny I remember when he tweeted this video that clearly sent an us vs them message to all Canadians. This is hate.

But what if the infallible pope is wrong about any/all of the “researchers and scientists”, “safe”, or “effective” parts? What if it’s the “crooks and criminals”, “harmful and deadly” and “less than useless” instead?

Wrong questions! It’s not about the trust in authorities or the merits of a particular medical device. It’s about your right to be who you are. Another pope, at the time when the divine was not subordinated to the worldly, had had another, dissenting opinion on the issue. Namely Pope Pius XII on the Moral Limits of Medical Treatment (1952):

On Sep. 14, 1952, Pope Pius XII gave an address to the First International Congress on the Histopathology of the Nervous System.

In it, the Holy Father speaks to scientists and doctors about the moral limits of medical research and treatment, specifically with regard to new methods, procedures, and technologies being tried. Pope Pius also addresses the question of what rights the patient has over his own body and psyche, what rights the doctor has over the patient, and, perhaps most importantly of all, what rights the lawful public authority has over individuals in view of the common good — and doesn’t have.

The full text of Pius XII’s address to the scientific congress is available in English here. And that is exactly what we want to establish now, ahead of the next time:

12. In the first place it must be assumed that, as a private person, the doctor can take no measure or try no course of action without the consent of the patient. The doctor has no other rights or power over the patient than those which the latter gives him, explicitly or implicitly and tacitly. On his side, the patient cannot confer rights he does not possess. In this discussion the decisive point is the moral licitness of the right a patient has to dispose of himself [=make decisions regarding himself]. Here is the moral limit to the doctor’s action taken with the consent of the patient.

13. As for the patient, he is not absolute master of himself, of his body or of his soul. He cannot, therefore, freely dispose of himself as he pleases. Even the reason for which he acts is of itself neither sufficient nor determining. The patient is bound to the immanent teleology laid down by nature. He has the right of use, limited by natural finality, of the faculties and powers of his human nature. Because he is a user and not a proprietor, he does not have unlimited power to destroy or mutilate his body and its functions. Nevertheless, by virtue of the principle of totality, by virtue of his right to use the services of his organism as a whole, the patient can allow individual parts to be destroyed or mutilated when and to the extent necessary for the good of his being as a whole. He may do so to ensure his being’s existence and to avoid or, naturally, to repair serious and lasting damage which cannot otherwise be avoided or repaired.

14. The patient, then, has no right to involve his physical or psychic integrity in medical experiments or research when they entail serious destruction, mutilation, wounds or perils.

15. Moreover, in exercising his right to dispose of himself, his faculties and his organs, the individual must observe the hierarchy of the orders of values — or within a single order of values, the hierarchy of particular rights — insofar as the rules of morality demand. Thus, for example, a man cannot perform on himself or allow doctors to perform acts of a physical or somatic nature which doubtless relieve heavy physical or psychic burdens or infirmities, but which bring about at the same time permanent abolition or considerable and durable diminution of his freedom, that is, of his human personality in its typical and characteristic function. Such an act degrades a man to the level of a being reacting only to acquired reflexes or to a living automation. The moral law does not allow such a reversal of values. Here it sets up its limits to the “medical interests of the patient.”

22. Nevertheless, for the third time we come back to the question: Is there any moral limit to the “medical interests of the community” in content or extension? Are there “full powers” over the living man in every serious medical case? Does it raise barriers that are still valid in the interests of science or the individual? Or, stated differently: Can public authority, on which rests responsibility for the common good, give the doctor the power to experiment on the individual in the interests of science and the community in order to discover and try out new methods and procedures when these experiments transgress the right of the individual to dispose of himself? In the interests of the community, can public authority really limit or even suppress the right of the individual over his body and life, his bodily and psychic integrity?

24. In regard to these questions many people have been of the opinion and are still of the opinion today, that the answer must be in the affirmative. To give weight to their contention they cite the fact that the individual is subordinated to the community, that the good of the individual must give way to the common good and be sacrificed to it.

28. In the above mentioned cases, insofar as the moral justification of the experiments rests on the mandate of public authority, and therefore on the subordination of the individual to the community, of the individual’s welfare to the common welfare, it is based on an erroneous explanation of this principle. It must be noted that, in his personal being, man is not finally ordered to usefulness to society. On the contrary, the community exists for man.

29. The community is the great means intended by nature and God to regulate the exchange of mutual needs and to aid each man to develop his personality fully according to his individual and social abilities. Considered as a whole, the community is not a physical unity subsisting in itself and its individual members are not integral parts of it. Considered as a whole, the physical organism of living beings, of plants, animals or man, has a unity subsisting in itself. Each of the members, for example, the hand, the foot, the heart, the eye, is an integral part destined by all its being to be inserted in the whole organism. Outside the organism it has not, by its very nature, any sense, any finality. It is wholly absorbed by the totality of the organism to which it is attached.

30. In the moral community and in every organism of a purely moral character, it is an entirely different story. Here the whole has no unity subsisting in itself, but a simple unity of finality and action. In the community individuals are merely collaborators and instruments for the realization of the common end.

31. What results as far as the physical organism is concerned? The master and user of this organism, which possesses a subsisting unity, can dispose directly and immediately of integral parts, members and organs within the scope of their natural finality. He can also intervene, as often as and to the extent that the good of the whole demands, to paralyze, destroy, mutilate and separate the members. But, on the contrary, when the whole has only a unity of finality and action, its head — in the present case, the public authority — doubtlessly holds direct authority and the right to make demands upon the activities of the parts, but in no case can it dispose of its physical being. Indeed, every direct attempt upon its essence constitutes an abuse of the power of authority.

32. Now medical experiments — the subject We are discussing here — immediately and directly affect the physical being, either of the whole or of the several organs, of the human organism. But, by virtue of the principle We have cited, public authority has no power in this sphere. It cannot, therefore, pass it on to research workers and doctors. It is from the State, however, that the doctor must receive authorization when he acts upon the organism of the individual in the “interests of the community.” For then he does not act as a private individual, but as a mandatory of the public power. The latter cannot, however, pass on a right that it does not possess, save in the case already mentioned when it acts as a deputy, as the legal representative of a minor for as long as he cannot make his own decisions, of a person of feeble mind or of a lunatic.

Long story short, the public authority does not possess the moral right to command an individual to sacrifice or imperil his being “for the common good” or for any other dubious ends. And the individual does not possess the moral right to harm or kill himself either as he is but the user of what has been given to him from above, not the owner. That also answers the MAID moral musings.

THE EPILOGUE

Moral law and order. Two extremely unpopular notions with the powers to be:

Every time I allude to higher powers in my posts, I lose a dozen or so subscribers. Which I consider good riddance. The problem is, without a faith in higher predestination, the humans are left in the ocean of relativity of morals, leading to no morals at the end of the journey (where we are at now) with no rudder, or anchor, or sail, or oars. You are then one-on-one with/against the authorities that have the monopoly on violence and are hell-bent on subduing or crushing you. David against Goliath. As I see it, faith is the only way out. Seriously. Look around.