Catholic priest debunks 'fetal tissue' claims in religious exemptions for Catholics

Originally published at: Catholic priest debunks 'fetal tissue' claims in religious exemptions for Catholics | Boing Boing


Problem is, the people who need to hear this information aren’t exactly in a state of mental preparedness to receive it, nor are they watching CNN.

Likewise, local Catholics gonna continue to Cath just like they always have. The belief that all of them march in lockstep according to what Papa Pope says is a fallacy.


That’s true, and this isn’t going to convince Catholics already deluded about vaccines to that level. However, I hate to think of the kind of “guidance” and “leadership” Ratzi would have given in this situation if he was still in charge.


All the while, folks are taking monoclonal antibodies which are made from actual fetal tissue. So much for being pro-life. lol


Additionally, and this may come as a shock, but there are plenty of older people who go to more than one church. Yes, even across denominations. No, they don’t care that it’s verboten to be considered both Catholic and some flavor of Orthodoxy.

And yes, they DO completely use whatever bizarre rationalization they can to inform you that they are TWICE as religious as you are, they’ve got the invisible sky wizard cheering for them in ALL houses, AND they’ll use their barely-understood faith to further protect them from common sense and reason.



Everything I’ve read has led me to believe that none of the monoclonal antibody therapies use aborted fetal tissue.


Specifically, the cells used were for the testing of the antibodies, so not directly. But if you’re pro-life even indirect uses are often considered immoral.


Which cells?

“The cells” means a lot of things. We’re -specifically- talking about aborted fetal tissue. Words matter.


Way back in the day, I was a chemist, not a biochemist or cell biologist, so my knowledge of cell culture is limited. But, my understanding is that most monoclonal antibody therapies are produced in various mammalian cell lines, some of which are not even human. There are some cell lines derived from embryonic tissue, but I have no idea if any of those particular lines were used to produce the COVID monoclonal antibodies.

Seriously, you’re gonna debate this? LOL

Indeed, Regeneron’s monoclonal antibody drug works by binding to the virus’s spike protein. Early in the drug development process, scientists used HEK293T trained to produce the protein to test whether the drug would, in fact, bind to it, Bowie said.

“The antibodies themselves weren’t made of any of these fetal cells,” Kriegstein noted. “But it was really critical to use these cells to test how effective their approach really was.”

Human embryonic kidney 293 cells , also often referred to as HEK 293 , HEK-293 , 293 cells , or less precisely as HEK cells , are a specific immortalised cell line derived from an aborted fetus or human embryonic kidney cells grown in tissue culture taken from a female fetus in 1973.


Cool. TIL


1 god good, 2 god better…


I’m not debating anything. I’m pointing out that you were incorrect, and now you’re… supporting my argument?

Saying “actual fetal tissue” more or less implies that “we took these cells from a fetus that we actually had our hands on, at the time, which was either aborted or miscarried” does it not?

If I said “I ate an actual ham sandwich for lunch today” would you assume that I was referring to a theoretical sandwich that I’d just made, or the crumbs from a sandwich I had last week?

please listen to your Pope and get vaccinated

Ask your Pope if vaccination is right for you!


Nope, you’re still wrong. Nice try at playing this “gotcha” game nonsense.

Wrong answer again, it seems like you ASSUME and not ask. I’m not trying to be mean but don’t assume when you can ask what I mean.

You can’t come to the conclusion that you did. So admit you MISUNDERSTOOD what I said rather than saying, “nuh uh you’re wrong and I’m right! I’m gonna tell the teacher!”

Not in the same way as talking in a colloquial sense. Also, indirect usage is still the same as direct usage for ethical arguments (see Rachaels Killing and Letting Die paper). So if you use drugs that were using fetal tissue in their development, any further usage is the same as using the cells themselves. It’s why we don’t praise Nazi scientists whether or not we liked going to the Moon or not.

But I will point out, I don’t think it’s unethical to take these antibodies if you’re pro-choice. The point here is that if you’re a pro-lifer you can’t make excuses making use of or indirectly benefiting from the use of aborted fetal tissue for any reason. If you’re pro-life then you ought to with respect to your moral imperative oppose any and all benefits of aborted fetal tissue direct or indirect to be considered morally consistent and not hypocritical. If that chaps your butt personally @JRLu then I can’t help you. But if you’re being pedantic to score points then go ahead you’re pedantically right but you’re still ethically wrong in terms of pro-lifers being able to benefit from said treatments, end of story (it’s not up for debate imo nor will I continue this discussion further).


I checked my BB handbook and you’re still wrong.

What you call “pedantic” I call “using the correct words when attempting to describe something scientific.”

You changed the manner of discussion from colloquialism when you decided to post articles, none of which supported the argument you were originally attempting to make, which was “monoclonal antibodies are made from actual fetal tissue.”

Well, that changes -everything-. /s

Okay, do you even know what my point was? Can you quote my original post IN WHOLE and then work back the point? It seems you really want to evade that for some reason (I’m gonna leave that for you to answer).


I am always so confused by how little the average christian actually knows about their religion.
Tell them about the Albigensian Crusade. The Reformation could have started 300 years early.
Not that any of them have heard of the Reformation.


With regard to this issue it’s a shame they won’t follow the pope’s direction. With regard to so, so many other issues I’m deeply thankful that most people who list themselves as Catholic on their census forms don’t follow the pope’s every directive.

Well, it’s worse than that, isn’t it? People are basically going off-religion to claim some kind of religious exemption, right?

Well, I mean, people basically do it all the time to somehow square all of the contradictory elements of any religion, and, really, how do you make any rational decisions while still enshrining credulous thinking, but it’s especially disturbing when it’s in service of going against such a consequential thing as vaccinations.