Post by jean on Sept 13, 2021 16:01:51 GMT -5
Considerations Regarding
Religious Exemption
For COVID-19 Pharmaceutical Injections
Rev. Shaun P. Whittington, MDiv, STB, NREMT
1. Introduction:
a. One of the most pressing moral issues facing the Catholic laity at present regards
the use of pharmaceutical injections for the prevention of the Covid-19
condition. Currently, many of the lay faithful are asking deep questions about
the morality of source material for the injections as well as various mandates
from civil authorities, ecclesial authorities, and workplace supervisors. While
there is no shortage of information and opinion attempting to answer these
questions, the seemingly contradictory and ambiguous information makes the
proper formation of one’s conscience difficult. Adding to that difficulty is both
the pressing need to resolve one’s decision and the heightened political
overtones of that decision.
b. Many lay faithful are turning to their clergy for guidance in the formation of
personal conscience and verification of such resulting decisions. While clergy are
no longer the sole formator in each community, they remain in an important
position of trust to assist the lay faithful. For all Christians, the “conscience must
be informed, and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is
upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in
conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The
education of conscience is indispensable for human beings” (CCC, 1783). The
guidance and support of the clergy for the lay faithful is anticipated: “Laymen
should also know that it is generally the function of their well-formed Christian
conscience to see that the divine law is inscribed in the life of the earthly city;
from priests they may look for spiritual light and nourishment” (Gaudium et spes,
43).
c. Turning our attention to a specific aspect of this complex situation, in a recent
email, the Vicar General and the Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Indianapolis
noted “that [some] members of the clergy have been asked to sign a document
providing an individual exemption based on a religious or moral objection to
either receiving the COVID-19 vaccination or to wearing a mask in a parish
setting” (email to all Archdiocesan clergy, 8/18/21). I would add, that in addition
to such documents in the parish setting, lay faithful are also asking for such
documents to submit to employers, especially in such places where Covid-19
injection mandates are being implemented. The directive states: “On behalf of
Archbishop Thompson, we wish to clearly state that archdiocesan clergy are not
permitted to sign any document that is in opposition to the clear teaching of the
Pope and the United States Bishops on the matter of the COVID-19 vaccination”
(email, 8/19/21). For out current purpose, I will set aside the question of
religious or moral exemptions for masks, but focus on the question of the
injection.
d. As a member archdiocesan clergy that has submitted documentation for
exemption from the Covid-19 injection on behalf of the faithful, I would like to
examine what type of documentation is in alinement with the Magisterium of
the Catholic Church and therefore could be signed by a member of the clergy of
the Archdiocese of Indianapolis.
2. Ethical Consideration I: Illicit Biological Material
a. The first ethical consideration is the biological source material that are used in
the development of pharmaceuticals. Both injections using the mRNA method
(Pfizer and Moderna) as well as the injection using the adenovirus vaccine
method (Johnson & Johnson) use illicit biological material. In the case of the
mRNA injection, fibroblast cells (cells which hold skin and connective tissue
together) were obtained from the elective abortion of multiple children in the
1960s. The most common cell lines are named WI-38, NRC-5 and HEK-293, each
representing experiments and failures in replication with HEK-293 becoming the
most robust and therefore most used cell line. In the case of the adenovirus
vaccine, retinal cells were removed from the eyes of a child electively terminated
in 1985 and began to be used to develop vaccines starting the late 1990’s and is
called PER.C6. (cf. www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-educationcenter/vaccine-ingredients/fetal-tissues). It must be noted neither of these cell
lines were develop without issue. Many elective abortions and dissection of
fetuses were needed before any success was found in reproducing the cells (ref.
cogforlife.org/AmJDisChildRA273inWI-38.pdf). The WI cell lines
necessitated at least 19 abortions and the RA 27/3 cell lines required 27
abortions (cf. M. Wadman, The Vaccine Race (Viking, 2017). Further, this does
not include multiple cell lines that are not currently in use for vaccine
development. Now, these cell lines are artificially reproduced in laboratory
environments where they continue to include the DNA and other cellular data of
the child kept carefully intact for experimentation.
b. In the late 1990’s and early 2000’s the use of aborted fetal cells became more
widely known and concern about the ethical use of such cells in development of
pharmaceutical therapies became a pressing question. One of the earliest
documents addressing this issue is dated June 9, 2005 from the Pontifical
Academy of Life which draws careful moral distinctions regarding cooperation
with evil and summarizes the Church’s position regarding the use of such
biological material as not prohibited in theory, but there is a “grave responsibility
to use alternative vaccines and to make a conscientious objection,” “vaccines
without an alternative [may be tolerated] as is necessary in order to avoid a
serious risk,” and “such cooperation occurs in a context of moral coercion. .
.which must be eliminated as soon as possible” (cf. Pontifical Academy for Life,
“Moral reflections on vaccines prepared from cells derived from aborted human
fetuses”, June 5, 2005). On December 21, 2020, the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith applied these principles stated above to the specific
circumstances of Covid-19 and stated: “The fundamental reason for considering
the use of these vaccines morally licit is that the kind of cooperation in evil
(passive material cooperation) in the procured abortion from which these cell
lines originate is, on the part of those making use of the resulting
vaccines, remote. The moral duty to avoid such passive material cooperation is
not obligatory if there is a grave danger, such as the otherwise uncontainable
spread of a serious pathological agent” (cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith, “Note on the Morality of Using Some Anti-Covid-19 Vaccines”)
c. In sum, testimony for religious exemption for the current Covid-19 injections,
implies that the Catholic Church is always opposed, in all cases, to the use of
fetal cells or other illicit biological materials, and it would therefore misrepresent
the magisterial teaching. A “religious exemption” should be used in situations of
objective moral evil that never admits to exceptions, such as proximate
cooperation with abortion. This is means that a “religious exemption” as
understood by the Catholic Church is not permitted for Covid-19 injection.
Rather, the any documentation used should reflect a more nuanced
understanding of cooperation in an intrinsically evil act, namely, that therapies
can be tolerated (but not compelled) if there is grave danger to health and there
is no alternative. Therefore, these points must be considered, and
determination made if a “conscience objection” can be applied.
3. Ethical Consideration II: Mandated Injection of Illicit Biological Materials
a. The Church’s position on medical interventions has been carefully considered,
especially in the last decades with rapid innovation in various therapies.
Certainly, questions regarding the beginning of life and the end of life are the
most pressing. However, the Church also has offered guidance on other aspects
of medical care because it relates to the whole person and not just the physical
reality of the body.
b. The CDF addressed this very issue in its note regarding the Covid injection:
“practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral
obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary” (cf. Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith, “Note on the Morality of Using Some Anti-Covid-19
Vaccines”). The bishops of Colorado warned people to "remain vigilant when
any bureaucracy seeks to impose uniform and sweeping requirements on a
group of people in areas of personal conscience. . . In the case of the COVID-19
vaccine, we are convicted that the government should not impose medical
interventions on an individual or group of persons" referencing the many
"human rights violations and a loss of respect for each person's God-given
dignity," which historically accompanied mandates that ignored the freedom of
conscience. Their letter provided a summary that the bishops said could lead a
Catholic to judge it either "right or wrong to receive certain vaccines for a variety
of reasons, and there is no Church law or rule that obligates a Catholic to receive
a vaccine — including COVID-19 vaccines." Describing the COVID-19 injection as
"a deeply personal issue," the bishops urged Catholics to "follow their
conscience," adding that if they discerned not to take the injection, they "should
not be penalized for doing so" (Cf. www.lifesitenews.com “Colorado bishops’
issue religious exemption letter for COVID shots, urging people to ‘follow their
conscience” Aug 10, 2021). In addition to the bishops of Colorado, the bishops
of Wisconsin have issued similar statements as well as numerous individual
bishops.
c. Archbishop Joseph Naumann chairman of the USCCB pro-life committee stated
the following: “The natural law requires all of us to discern carefully right from
wrong in conscience as well as to pursue the common good. A society that fails
to respect the rights of conscience lacks a key element of the common good . . .
The most charitable and just posture is to seek to accommodate the consciences
of all persons. . . It is indeed a fundamental pillar of medical ethics that there
should be free and informed consent and no coercion when deciding on a
medical intervention.” Finally, Archbishop Naumann stressed that “Lay Catholics
can and should insist on their conscience rights and religious liberties based on
the authoritative teachings of the Church found in the Catechism, papal and
ecumenical council documents, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,
and other sources. . . Bishops, priests and the entire Church should support the
right and duty of Catholics to obey their consciences” (cf. www.lifesitenews.com
“Abp. Naumann rejects COVID–19 vaccine mandates, backs ‘prophetic witness’
against abortion-tainted jabs” Aug 30, 2021).
d. All these statements are clearly the same moral reasoning that is laid out in the
CDF’s Note regarding covid injections, which it is important to remember, clearly
states “practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral
obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary” and in its conclusion: “The
Sovereign Pontiff Francis . . . examined the present Note and ordered its
publication.” While some may cite the Pope’s words in an interview with the
media, “I believe that morally everyone must take the vaccine” I hold that it is
not my responsibility to solve contradictory statements by our Holy Father.
e. In sum, the Church’s clear position, in her teaching, the published opinion of
Pope Francis, the witness of many bishops, is clear: the right of conscience
cannot be violated by mandating the injection and therefore a “conscience
objection” would be applicable should one decide not to receive the Covid-19
injection. The remaining issue to consider is what should guide the conscience in
determining the one’s decision regarding the injection.
4. Ethical Consideration III: Therapeutic Proportionality
a. The practical guiding principle for determination of medical interventions is
“therapeutic proportionality.” The National Catholic Bioethics Center states:
“Therapeutic proportionality is an assessment of whether the benefits of a
medical intervention outweigh the undesirable side-effects and burdens in light
of the integral good of the person, including spiritual, psychological, and bodily
goods. It can also extend to the good of others and the common good, which
likewise entail spiritual and moral dimensions and are not reducible to public
health. The judgment of therapeutic proportionality must be made by the person
who is the potential recipient of the intervention in the concrete circumstances,
not by public health authorities or by other individuals who might judge
differently in their own situations.”
b. The NCBC list the following as some considerations regarding therapeutic
proportionality (cf. www.ncbcenter.org/ncbcnews/vaccinestatementupdated):
i. The significance of the U.S. Food & Drug Administration’s (FDA) current
Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) for vaccines in use. For example,
someone might judge that an EUA, while legal, does not provide for him
or her sufficient evidence of long-term safety and so postpone accepting
a vaccine until standard FDA approval is granted
ii. Relevant information in the FDA’s fact sheets on each vaccine.
iii. One’s own health needs and underlying conditions, such as certain
allergies or comorbidities
iv. General and personalized guidance about the disease and the vaccines
from reliable and trusted health care professionals.
v. One’s responsibility for the health of others, and other circumstances
related to family and community life or line of work
vi. Issues of safety, efficacy, and reasonable availability among the vaccine
options
c. Perhaps the simple summary of the points from the NCBC is this: one must
discern acceptable risk of sickness versus risk of adverse reactions to the medical
treatment.
d. The question of vaccination for the sake of other’s health is of critical
importance, but none of the current Covid-19 injections are “sanitizing vaccines”
which means that even if one is vaccinated, it offers no protection to another
person since a vaccinate person can become infected (usually a-symptomatically
or mildly symptomatic) and therefore can potentially transmit the virus to
someone else. Because the current injections are non-sanitizing vaccines, there
is little to no relevance to the issue of the “common good” (cf.
www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31976-
0/fulltext#coronavirus-linkback-header).
5. Conclusion
a. In conclusion, we turn to Gadium et Spes, paragraph 9: “The Church can anchor
the dignity of human nature against all tides of opinion, for example those which
undervalue the human body or idolize it. By no human law can the personal
dignity and liberty of man be so aptly safeguarded as by the Gospel of Christ
which has been entrusted to the Church. For this Gospel announces and
proclaims the freedom of the sons of God and repudiates all the bondage which
ultimately results from sin. (cf. Rom. 8:14-17).”
b. Returning to the original question, can Catholic clergy support someone that
does not desire the injection? Clearly, yes, Catholic clergy can, and indeed
should, assist the faithful in who in a well-formed conscience according to the
teachings of Christ and His Church decide using the principle of therapeutic
proportionality not to receive the injection. It is true that according to technical
theological terms, we would refer to this as a “conscience objection” not a
“religious objection,” it does not matter what secular authorities happen to call
it.
c. The unfailing witness of the church is the dignity of the human person created in
the image of God. In a fallen and wounded world, what should be simple often
becomes complicated by sin. No medical treatment should ever involve the
decision of one life being valued less than someone else’s. No one should be
killed for another to live. The “remote material cooperation with evil” should
always be resisted. The Culture of Death and the Culture of Life cannot co-exist
in a truce of practical expediency for one at the cost of another’s life. While
some may have chosen, in their conscience that therapeutic proportionality
permits a tolerance of passive material cooperation – and they should not be
judged for their thoughtful and prayerful decision – others will choose not to.
The protection of well-formed conscience objection must be rigorously defended
by the Church, by Christians, and by all people of good will. Otherwise, no one’s
conscience is safe from the power of coercion. Rather, than cave to the power
of the state, the Church should be issuing a clear, strong, and valiant, effort to
resist the Culture of Death and usher in the triumph of the Culture of Life
Religious Exemption
For COVID-19 Pharmaceutical Injections
Rev. Shaun P. Whittington, MDiv, STB, NREMT
1. Introduction:
a. One of the most pressing moral issues facing the Catholic laity at present regards
the use of pharmaceutical injections for the prevention of the Covid-19
condition. Currently, many of the lay faithful are asking deep questions about
the morality of source material for the injections as well as various mandates
from civil authorities, ecclesial authorities, and workplace supervisors. While
there is no shortage of information and opinion attempting to answer these
questions, the seemingly contradictory and ambiguous information makes the
proper formation of one’s conscience difficult. Adding to that difficulty is both
the pressing need to resolve one’s decision and the heightened political
overtones of that decision.
b. Many lay faithful are turning to their clergy for guidance in the formation of
personal conscience and verification of such resulting decisions. While clergy are
no longer the sole formator in each community, they remain in an important
position of trust to assist the lay faithful. For all Christians, the “conscience must
be informed, and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is
upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in
conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The
education of conscience is indispensable for human beings” (CCC, 1783). The
guidance and support of the clergy for the lay faithful is anticipated: “Laymen
should also know that it is generally the function of their well-formed Christian
conscience to see that the divine law is inscribed in the life of the earthly city;
from priests they may look for spiritual light and nourishment” (Gaudium et spes,
43).
c. Turning our attention to a specific aspect of this complex situation, in a recent
email, the Vicar General and the Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Indianapolis
noted “that [some] members of the clergy have been asked to sign a document
providing an individual exemption based on a religious or moral objection to
either receiving the COVID-19 vaccination or to wearing a mask in a parish
setting” (email to all Archdiocesan clergy, 8/18/21). I would add, that in addition
to such documents in the parish setting, lay faithful are also asking for such
documents to submit to employers, especially in such places where Covid-19
injection mandates are being implemented. The directive states: “On behalf of
Archbishop Thompson, we wish to clearly state that archdiocesan clergy are not
permitted to sign any document that is in opposition to the clear teaching of the
Pope and the United States Bishops on the matter of the COVID-19 vaccination”
(email, 8/19/21). For out current purpose, I will set aside the question of
religious or moral exemptions for masks, but focus on the question of the
injection.
d. As a member archdiocesan clergy that has submitted documentation for
exemption from the Covid-19 injection on behalf of the faithful, I would like to
examine what type of documentation is in alinement with the Magisterium of
the Catholic Church and therefore could be signed by a member of the clergy of
the Archdiocese of Indianapolis.
2. Ethical Consideration I: Illicit Biological Material
a. The first ethical consideration is the biological source material that are used in
the development of pharmaceuticals. Both injections using the mRNA method
(Pfizer and Moderna) as well as the injection using the adenovirus vaccine
method (Johnson & Johnson) use illicit biological material. In the case of the
mRNA injection, fibroblast cells (cells which hold skin and connective tissue
together) were obtained from the elective abortion of multiple children in the
1960s. The most common cell lines are named WI-38, NRC-5 and HEK-293, each
representing experiments and failures in replication with HEK-293 becoming the
most robust and therefore most used cell line. In the case of the adenovirus
vaccine, retinal cells were removed from the eyes of a child electively terminated
in 1985 and began to be used to develop vaccines starting the late 1990’s and is
called PER.C6. (cf. www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-educationcenter/vaccine-ingredients/fetal-tissues). It must be noted neither of these cell
lines were develop without issue. Many elective abortions and dissection of
fetuses were needed before any success was found in reproducing the cells (ref.
cogforlife.org/AmJDisChildRA273inWI-38.pdf). The WI cell lines
necessitated at least 19 abortions and the RA 27/3 cell lines required 27
abortions (cf. M. Wadman, The Vaccine Race (Viking, 2017). Further, this does
not include multiple cell lines that are not currently in use for vaccine
development. Now, these cell lines are artificially reproduced in laboratory
environments where they continue to include the DNA and other cellular data of
the child kept carefully intact for experimentation.
b. In the late 1990’s and early 2000’s the use of aborted fetal cells became more
widely known and concern about the ethical use of such cells in development of
pharmaceutical therapies became a pressing question. One of the earliest
documents addressing this issue is dated June 9, 2005 from the Pontifical
Academy of Life which draws careful moral distinctions regarding cooperation
with evil and summarizes the Church’s position regarding the use of such
biological material as not prohibited in theory, but there is a “grave responsibility
to use alternative vaccines and to make a conscientious objection,” “vaccines
without an alternative [may be tolerated] as is necessary in order to avoid a
serious risk,” and “such cooperation occurs in a context of moral coercion. .
.which must be eliminated as soon as possible” (cf. Pontifical Academy for Life,
“Moral reflections on vaccines prepared from cells derived from aborted human
fetuses”, June 5, 2005). On December 21, 2020, the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith applied these principles stated above to the specific
circumstances of Covid-19 and stated: “The fundamental reason for considering
the use of these vaccines morally licit is that the kind of cooperation in evil
(passive material cooperation) in the procured abortion from which these cell
lines originate is, on the part of those making use of the resulting
vaccines, remote. The moral duty to avoid such passive material cooperation is
not obligatory if there is a grave danger, such as the otherwise uncontainable
spread of a serious pathological agent” (cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith, “Note on the Morality of Using Some Anti-Covid-19 Vaccines”)
c. In sum, testimony for religious exemption for the current Covid-19 injections,
implies that the Catholic Church is always opposed, in all cases, to the use of
fetal cells or other illicit biological materials, and it would therefore misrepresent
the magisterial teaching. A “religious exemption” should be used in situations of
objective moral evil that never admits to exceptions, such as proximate
cooperation with abortion. This is means that a “religious exemption” as
understood by the Catholic Church is not permitted for Covid-19 injection.
Rather, the any documentation used should reflect a more nuanced
understanding of cooperation in an intrinsically evil act, namely, that therapies
can be tolerated (but not compelled) if there is grave danger to health and there
is no alternative. Therefore, these points must be considered, and
determination made if a “conscience objection” can be applied.
3. Ethical Consideration II: Mandated Injection of Illicit Biological Materials
a. The Church’s position on medical interventions has been carefully considered,
especially in the last decades with rapid innovation in various therapies.
Certainly, questions regarding the beginning of life and the end of life are the
most pressing. However, the Church also has offered guidance on other aspects
of medical care because it relates to the whole person and not just the physical
reality of the body.
b. The CDF addressed this very issue in its note regarding the Covid injection:
“practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral
obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary” (cf. Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith, “Note on the Morality of Using Some Anti-Covid-19
Vaccines”). The bishops of Colorado warned people to "remain vigilant when
any bureaucracy seeks to impose uniform and sweeping requirements on a
group of people in areas of personal conscience. . . In the case of the COVID-19
vaccine, we are convicted that the government should not impose medical
interventions on an individual or group of persons" referencing the many
"human rights violations and a loss of respect for each person's God-given
dignity," which historically accompanied mandates that ignored the freedom of
conscience. Their letter provided a summary that the bishops said could lead a
Catholic to judge it either "right or wrong to receive certain vaccines for a variety
of reasons, and there is no Church law or rule that obligates a Catholic to receive
a vaccine — including COVID-19 vaccines." Describing the COVID-19 injection as
"a deeply personal issue," the bishops urged Catholics to "follow their
conscience," adding that if they discerned not to take the injection, they "should
not be penalized for doing so" (Cf. www.lifesitenews.com “Colorado bishops’
issue religious exemption letter for COVID shots, urging people to ‘follow their
conscience” Aug 10, 2021). In addition to the bishops of Colorado, the bishops
of Wisconsin have issued similar statements as well as numerous individual
bishops.
c. Archbishop Joseph Naumann chairman of the USCCB pro-life committee stated
the following: “The natural law requires all of us to discern carefully right from
wrong in conscience as well as to pursue the common good. A society that fails
to respect the rights of conscience lacks a key element of the common good . . .
The most charitable and just posture is to seek to accommodate the consciences
of all persons. . . It is indeed a fundamental pillar of medical ethics that there
should be free and informed consent and no coercion when deciding on a
medical intervention.” Finally, Archbishop Naumann stressed that “Lay Catholics
can and should insist on their conscience rights and religious liberties based on
the authoritative teachings of the Church found in the Catechism, papal and
ecumenical council documents, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,
and other sources. . . Bishops, priests and the entire Church should support the
right and duty of Catholics to obey their consciences” (cf. www.lifesitenews.com
“Abp. Naumann rejects COVID–19 vaccine mandates, backs ‘prophetic witness’
against abortion-tainted jabs” Aug 30, 2021).
d. All these statements are clearly the same moral reasoning that is laid out in the
CDF’s Note regarding covid injections, which it is important to remember, clearly
states “practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral
obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary” and in its conclusion: “The
Sovereign Pontiff Francis . . . examined the present Note and ordered its
publication.” While some may cite the Pope’s words in an interview with the
media, “I believe that morally everyone must take the vaccine” I hold that it is
not my responsibility to solve contradictory statements by our Holy Father.
e. In sum, the Church’s clear position, in her teaching, the published opinion of
Pope Francis, the witness of many bishops, is clear: the right of conscience
cannot be violated by mandating the injection and therefore a “conscience
objection” would be applicable should one decide not to receive the Covid-19
injection. The remaining issue to consider is what should guide the conscience in
determining the one’s decision regarding the injection.
4. Ethical Consideration III: Therapeutic Proportionality
a. The practical guiding principle for determination of medical interventions is
“therapeutic proportionality.” The National Catholic Bioethics Center states:
“Therapeutic proportionality is an assessment of whether the benefits of a
medical intervention outweigh the undesirable side-effects and burdens in light
of the integral good of the person, including spiritual, psychological, and bodily
goods. It can also extend to the good of others and the common good, which
likewise entail spiritual and moral dimensions and are not reducible to public
health. The judgment of therapeutic proportionality must be made by the person
who is the potential recipient of the intervention in the concrete circumstances,
not by public health authorities or by other individuals who might judge
differently in their own situations.”
b. The NCBC list the following as some considerations regarding therapeutic
proportionality (cf. www.ncbcenter.org/ncbcnews/vaccinestatementupdated):
i. The significance of the U.S. Food & Drug Administration’s (FDA) current
Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) for vaccines in use. For example,
someone might judge that an EUA, while legal, does not provide for him
or her sufficient evidence of long-term safety and so postpone accepting
a vaccine until standard FDA approval is granted
ii. Relevant information in the FDA’s fact sheets on each vaccine.
iii. One’s own health needs and underlying conditions, such as certain
allergies or comorbidities
iv. General and personalized guidance about the disease and the vaccines
from reliable and trusted health care professionals.
v. One’s responsibility for the health of others, and other circumstances
related to family and community life or line of work
vi. Issues of safety, efficacy, and reasonable availability among the vaccine
options
c. Perhaps the simple summary of the points from the NCBC is this: one must
discern acceptable risk of sickness versus risk of adverse reactions to the medical
treatment.
d. The question of vaccination for the sake of other’s health is of critical
importance, but none of the current Covid-19 injections are “sanitizing vaccines”
which means that even if one is vaccinated, it offers no protection to another
person since a vaccinate person can become infected (usually a-symptomatically
or mildly symptomatic) and therefore can potentially transmit the virus to
someone else. Because the current injections are non-sanitizing vaccines, there
is little to no relevance to the issue of the “common good” (cf.
www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31976-
0/fulltext#coronavirus-linkback-header).
5. Conclusion
a. In conclusion, we turn to Gadium et Spes, paragraph 9: “The Church can anchor
the dignity of human nature against all tides of opinion, for example those which
undervalue the human body or idolize it. By no human law can the personal
dignity and liberty of man be so aptly safeguarded as by the Gospel of Christ
which has been entrusted to the Church. For this Gospel announces and
proclaims the freedom of the sons of God and repudiates all the bondage which
ultimately results from sin. (cf. Rom. 8:14-17).”
b. Returning to the original question, can Catholic clergy support someone that
does not desire the injection? Clearly, yes, Catholic clergy can, and indeed
should, assist the faithful in who in a well-formed conscience according to the
teachings of Christ and His Church decide using the principle of therapeutic
proportionality not to receive the injection. It is true that according to technical
theological terms, we would refer to this as a “conscience objection” not a
“religious objection,” it does not matter what secular authorities happen to call
it.
c. The unfailing witness of the church is the dignity of the human person created in
the image of God. In a fallen and wounded world, what should be simple often
becomes complicated by sin. No medical treatment should ever involve the
decision of one life being valued less than someone else’s. No one should be
killed for another to live. The “remote material cooperation with evil” should
always be resisted. The Culture of Death and the Culture of Life cannot co-exist
in a truce of practical expediency for one at the cost of another’s life. While
some may have chosen, in their conscience that therapeutic proportionality
permits a tolerance of passive material cooperation – and they should not be
judged for their thoughtful and prayerful decision – others will choose not to.
The protection of well-formed conscience objection must be rigorously defended
by the Church, by Christians, and by all people of good will. Otherwise, no one’s
conscience is safe from the power of coercion. Rather, than cave to the power
of the state, the Church should be issuing a clear, strong, and valiant, effort to
resist the Culture of Death and usher in the triumph of the Culture of Life