This may not be of interest to anyone who's not a convinced Catholic. (But then, I don't think anyone's reading this blog anyway, and if anyone is, they are probably Catholic or sympathetic to Catholicism). I wanted to write this out anyway, though, in order to make it as clear as I can what the Vatican presently says about this issue.
From the article:
The Vatican paper attempts to address the dilemma parents face. Parents have a sure and certain moral obligation to promote the health and well-being of their children, and vaccination, in general, is part of that parental responsibility. However, the vaccines which utilize these human cell lines derived from aborted babies are immoral. Their manufacture and distribution is morally illicit "as a matter of principle." Using the vaccines represents cooperation with the evil of the original abortion, even if in a remote and passive way. Thus the recommendation that parents make "an objection of conscience," up to, and including, abstention from use.
Except, the paper says, when "significant risk" exists in refusing to use them. This is not an insignificant caveat.......
The "significant risk" gives Catholic parents a loophole. The Vatican letter, I believe, says we "may" use illicit vaccinations if there is no alternative, in those cases.
Were we remiss?
I know many families who don't choose to vaccinate their kids for varicella. Not many with a liver transplant kid though. Were we obligated to immunize our kids?
I pondered this a lot while walking and saying Rosaries by the lake with my precious Aidan.
WERE we remiss?
Were WE remiss?
Were we REMISS?
(Different but equally agonizing guilt nerves twanging with each different emphasis)
I do not know. That Kraken looks just as evil and hungry as it did before. And the original aborted baby was just as precious as Aidan is. (I think I have another angel in my heart now, along with Aidan's donor).
No easy answers.