Faut-il rappeler qu'un simple avis, fût-il de l'Académie en question, n'est pas magistériel ? Votre titre "doctrine catholique" est donc inapproprié. Ce texte est intéressant, certes, mais j'aimerais qu'il soit discuté davantage, notamment dans ses rapports avec divers sujets, comme le cannibalisme, l'utilitarisme, le recel... Du reste je crois qu'on peut repousser le terme "favoring", que j'ai mis en gras vers la fin du texte : il serait plus exact d'écrire "non oposing" - et cela change le jugement moral sur les faits.

De plus votre avis à vous (qui n'est pas magistériel non plus, faut-il le rappeler ?) ne porte que sur un aspect mineur de l'appel, et ne peut par conséquent suffire à le rejeter dans son ensemble. On peut regretter la phrase qui ne vous plaît pas, mais elle n'est pas vraiment grave, seulement imprécise (et encore, à condition d'adhérer à cet avis), surtout en comparaison de certaines affirmations du Souverain Pontife par exemple.

VdP
_______________________________________________________________

Voici le texte de l'Académie, du moins le passage qui nous intéresse.

Application to the Use of Vaccines
Prepared from Cells Coming from Embryos
or Fetuses Aborted Voluntarily

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 fromvoluntary 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 formof formal cooperation (sharing the evil intention) in the action of those who have performed a voluntary abortion, which in turn has allowed the retrieval offetal tissues,required forthe preparation of vaccines. Therefore, whoever — regardless of the category to which he belongs — cooperates in some way, sharing its intention, in the performance of a voluntary abortion with the aim of producing the above-mentioned vaccines, participates, in actuality, in the same moral evil asthe person who has performed that abortion. 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, with the following specifications.
As regards the preparation, distribution, andmarketing of vaccines produced as a result of the use of biological material whose origin is connected with cells coming from fetuses voluntarily aborted, such a process is stated, as a matter of principle,
morally illicit, because it could contribute in encouraging the performance of other voluntary abortions, with the purpose of the production ofsuch vaccines. Nevertheless, it should be recognized that, withinthe chain of production-distribution-marketing, the various cooperating agents can have different moral responsibilities.
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 vaccinesfor the same infections. Such passive material cooperation, if itshould occur, is equally illicit.
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) 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. 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.
Therefore, doctors and fathers of families have a duty to take recourse to alternative vaccines 14 (if they exist), putting pressure on the political authorities and health systems so that other vaccines without moral problems become available.
They should take recourse, if necessary, to the use of conscientious objection 15 with regard to the use of vaccines produced by means of cell lines of aborted human fetal origin. Equally, they should oppose by all means (in writing, through the various associations, mass media) the vaccines which do not yet have morally acceptable alternatives, creating pressure so that alternative vaccines are prepared, which are not connected with the abortion of a human fetus, and requesting rigorous legal
control of the pharmaceutical industry producers.
As regards the diseases against which there are no alternative vaccines which are available and ethically acceptable, it is right to abstain from using these vaccines if it can be done without causing children, and indirectly the population as a whole, to undergo significant risks to their health. However, if the latter are exposed to considerable dangers to their health, vaccines with moral problems pertaining to them may also be used on a temporary basis. The moral reason is that the duty to avoid passive material cooperation is not obligatory if there is grave inconvenience. Moreover, we find, in such a case, a proportional reason, in order to accept the use of these vaccines in the presence of the danger of favoring the spread of the pathological agent, due to the lack of vaccination of children. This is particularly true in the case of vaccination against German measles. 16

12 See John Paul II, Evangelium vitae, n. 74.
13 Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1868.
14 The alternative vaccines in question are those that are prepared by means of cell lines which are not of human origin, for example, the Vero cell line (from monkeys) (D. Vinnedge, “The Smallpox Vaccine,” National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 2.1 [Spring 2000]: 2), the kidney cells of rabbits or monkeys, or the cells of chicken embryos. However, it should be noted that grave forms of allergy have occurred with some of the vaccines prepared in this way. The use of recombinant DNA technology could lead to the development of new vaccines in the near future which will no longer require the use of cultures of human diploid cells for the attenuation of the virus and its growth, for such vaccines will not be prepared from a basis of attenuated virus, but from the genome of the virus and from the antigens thus developed. G. C. Woodrow, “An Overview ofBiotechnology as Applied to Vaccine Development,” in New Generation Vaccines, eds. W. M. McDonnell and M. M. Levine (New York: Marcel Dekker, 1990), 32–37; F. K. Askarim
“Immunization,” JAMA 278.22 (December 10, 1997): 2005–2006. Some experimental studies have already been done using vaccines developed from DNA that has been derived from the genome of the German measles virus. Moreover, some Asiatic researchers are trying to use the varicella virus as a vector for the insertion of genes which codify the viral antigens of rubella. These studies are still at a preliminary phase and the refinement of vaccine preparations which can be used in clinical practice will require a lengthy period of time and will be at high costs.
15 Such a duty may lead, as a consequence, to taking recourse to “objection of conscience” when the action recognized as illicit is an act permitted or even encouraged by the laws of the country and poses a threat to human life. The encyclical letter Evangelium vitae underlined this “obligation to oppose” the laws which permit abortion or euthanasia “by conscientious objection” (n. 73).
16 This is particularly true in the case of vaccination against German measles, because of the danger of congenital rubella syndrome. This could occur, causing grave congenital malformations in the fetus, when a pregnant woman enters into contact, even if it is brief, with children who have not been immunized and are carriers of the virus. In this case, the parents who did not accept the vaccination of their own children become responsible for the malformations in question, and for the subsequent abortion of fetuses, when they have been discovered to be malformed.

     

Soutenir le Forum Catholique dans son entretien, c'est possible. Soit à l'aide d'un virement mensuel soit par le biais d'un soutien ponctuel. Rendez-vous sur la page dédiée en cliquant ici. D'avance, merci !