Dr. Jeffrey Jahre joins ‘Fox & Friends’ to explain why the hospital made the decision, says the hospital is following the science
— Read on video.foxnews.com/v/6272662762001
Tag: Conscience
Coercive COVID-19 Vaccine Practices: Prophylactic Vaccine Tyranny is Destroying the Common Good
Prophylactic Tyranny is Destroying the Common Good
As soon as the FDA gave final approval to a Pfizer covid vaccine—which one? what is it called?—the vaccine mandates started rolling out, especially for hospitals and health care workers. The largest hospital system in our region of the country issued its vaccine mandate for physicians, nurses, and everyone corporate headquarters could think to include. Corporate also provided a very onerous form for requesting a religious exemption. That form reads like the questions in a transcript of a cross-examination of a hostile witness. Have you ever had a flu-shot? Have you ever been vaccinated? So, why do you want an exemption for this vaccine? Literally. Apparently, based upon one’s answers, someone in the corporate office will decide whether physicians and other medical professionals are worthy of an exemption. Amazing stuff. This is a new twist on the ancient proverb quoted by Jesus in Luke 4:23, “Surely, you will quote this proverb to me, ‘Physician, heal thyself.’” In an even more offensive move, the hospital system is making their employees sign a waiver of liability preventing them from suing if the employee is harmed by the vaccine. All people in a free society should be outraged by such strong-armed tyranny.
Everyone, without exception, is a candidate for a religious exemption from COVID-19 vaccines. Religious exemptions are based in the nature of the human person and not upon the authoritative definition of religious doctrine. Religious exemptions are moral exemptions because the import of a religious exemption is not only what one believes but what one is required to do in order to act consistently and authentically as a consequence of the judgment of conscience arising out of a belief. There is no requirement in the law of this land that dictates that person may only exercise a right of religion if it accords with an ecclesiastically defined religious doctrine. Everyone has a right to free and conscientious, i.e., moral consideration and judgment. Moreover, the connection to abortion, most often cited as the basis of moral objection to certain vaccines, is but one element founded in practical reason that would lead a competent human being to the finding that a vaccine is morally offensive.
The basis of conscientious objection founded in religious belief is a matter of practical reason, that is to say that it is a matter of prudence, following philosophical and theological principles. This is the realm of morality. Such principles are formulae based upon observations founded in rational human nature. The Catholic Church holds that the human capacity we call the conscience is the subjective norm of morality. The objective norm is the Natural Law. It would be difficult to formulate a concept of human freedom without these. Without subjectivity, how can one act as an individual within society? Without the constraint of the observation of the Natural Law, how could freedom achieve its true and objectively discernable purpose of human flourishing? Justice demands a recognition of these two norms. The Divine Law, which comes later, is given as a corrective or means for clarification of the Natural Law. Divine (Positive) Law, as well as Natural Law whose fundamental dictates are perceived in the conscience, are of the same origin, the Wisdom that orders the universe.
The most basic perception of the moral conscience is apparent in the instinct to do good and avoid evil. Good and evil are in the choice of the will. Human nature establishes the norm. It is the responsibility of each individual to form his or her conscience according that which is good and right considering the defining characteristics of human nature. The elements of that formation are guided by the authentic teaching of Divine Revelation, but the foundation of that truth is within the very nature of the human person. Divine Revelation leads and illuminates that process of formation but it is not the origin of it. It originates in the Creator and is observable in nature, especially in the nature of the rational creature. It is within the capacity of competent individuals to apply their practical reason regarding the treatment of their own bodies. If cynical minds are allowed to prevail and individual judgments of conscience are circumvented, much damage is done to the common good and to the authentic human development within society.
The treatment and care of humans is done ethically when the persons receiving treatment are considered, according to right reason, to be human subjects capable of self-mastery and free choice. The requirement that consent be given to be treated prevents treatment from being considered an unlawful battery. Informed consent, a fundamental tenet of medical ethics, is necessary for free choice. More widely, it is a matter of personal security over collective tyranny. How many recipients are given actual scientific information about the benefits and risks of the vaccines? The declarations of government agencies do not suffice, especially when it is patently obvious that we are in an experimental period and scientific information is limited and conflicting. The common good is not achieved by suppressing the dignity of human beings in general or the life and freedom of individual human beings. But this is exactly what is being done. In such a case we experience some degree of tyranny over the group of lesser influence or members of society who do not have access to valuable information about their health and safety. The common good is not synonymous with the will of the majority or the most influential among us and in cases in which that controlling opinion leads to oppression of individual human rights, it is in opposition the common good.
In its application of the Natural Law, the Catholic Church speaks in view of the nature of the human person observable by reason, not upon a confession of a theological position or doctrine. The Natural Law is universal in its precepts. Consent, either express or implied, to a proposed treatment is indispensable. It is on that basis, not a defined theological doctrine, that the Catholic Church holds that vaccination must be voluntary. It is a matter of universal human right to be secure in one’s person. If, as seems to be the case now, some high-ranking prelates have placed their apparent empathy over right reason and justice, the statements flowing out of that empathy must be ignored. Their sincerity does not create justice. The Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) note on the COVID-19 vaccines from December of 2020 encompasses this very thought.[i] In that document the CDF states that (1) one may use the vaccine even though it is morally connected to abortion and (2) that practical intelligence tells us that vaccination cannot be mandatory; it must be voluntary. Practical intelligence is not, in the first instance, a religious concept. A human act is, by definition, voluntary. Choice is an act of the voluntary will. The concept of practical intelligence refers specifically to the moral choice of well-formed conscience guided by prudence, a human virtue.
The reasons that one would conscientiously object to the use of any treatment, prophylactic or otherwise, could be numerous. The Catholic Church expressly holds that one may refuse extraordinary treatment when the proposed course of action is ineffective, risky, or even so seriously inconvenient as to constitute an excessive burden. In every case the individual conscience must be followed and no one can substitute his or her judgment for the patient (potential vaccine recipient) or the patient’s proxy, without violating the person’s body. The practical judgment of an individual will be based upon safety, efficacy, individual factors, the advice of medical professionals, the good of others, and even psychological factors and matters of convenience. Human dignity and subjectivity demand this and no political or social body, be it governmental, ecclesiastical, or contractual-as in the case of an employer-, has the legitimate power to suppress the individual’s right to exercise freedom in accordance with the dictates of conscience, even in this matter. Individual conscientious judgments are to be met with reasonable efforts on the part of political and social institutions to find means of accommodation of expressions of one’s dignity and freedom, not with suppression and irrational segregation. Otherwise, the rights of conscience are effectively quashed and human life, dignity and freedom are diminished. A political or social entity cannot supplant the individual and free choices of persons either by mandate or onerous restrictions. Efforts to do so are destructive of justice.
[i]“Note on the morality of using some anti-Covid-19 vaccines,” Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (Dec. 21, 2020 https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2020/12/21/201221c.html. I presented that information here: https://frontlinemoral.org/2021/03/14/the-problem-of-analyzing-cooperation-in-evil-and-the-covid-19-vaccines-part-3-the-vaccines-can-be-used-without-committing-moral-evil-this-use-must-be-voluntary/.
National Catholic Bioethics Center Holds To Church’s Authentic Teaching on COVID Vaccines
“The NCBC fully acknowledges the complex and challenging decisions in conscience that institutions — including Catholic health care organizations — need to make not only for the sake of the persons they serve but also for the good of their employees. Respecting the conscientious judgments and religious beliefs of these employees is an indispensable dimension of this. A July 27th Joint National Hospital Association Statement said that mandatory vaccination policies needed appropriate accommodations for medical or religious exemptions.” https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e3ada1a6a2e8d6a131d1dcd/t/611ba9f52d8dc60282e0ec67/1629202933410/NCBC+press+release+on+the+common+good%2C+conscience+and+charity+August+17%2C+2021+.pdf
Catholic Medical Association: Vaccination must be voluntary
Catholic Medical Association Opposes Vaccine Mandates without Conscience and Religious Exemptions
Philadelphia, PA- July 28, 2021- The Catholic Medical Association (CMA) is the largest association of Catholic physicians and healthcare professionals in the United States. Our mission is the formation and support of current and future physicians to live and promote the principles of the Catholic Faith in the science and practice of medicine. As an organization, CMA opposes mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations as a condition of employment without conscience or religious exemptions.
Throughout the COVID–19 pandemic our organization has consistently provided reliable, up to date medical information regarding mitigation efforts and therapeutics, as well as information regarding the development and subsequent FDA emergency use authorization of three COVID-19 vaccines. In a recent survey of our members we identified a variety of reasons for choosing to receive the vaccine including concern for becoming ill with COVID-19 and preventing transmission to others in the interest of the public health and the common good. We also found that members expressed serious concerns regarding preliminary safety and efficacy data particularly with regard to the newer mRNA technology. In either case, ALL members voiced moral / ethical objection to the use of aborted fetal cell lines in development, testing and/or production of all three currently available vaccines.
An individual Catholic’s decision to be vaccinated should be informed by the clear and authoritative moral teaching of the Church on vaccinations. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith states: “when ethically irreproachable Covid-19 vaccines are not available…it is morally acceptable to receive Covid-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses in their research and production process…The moral duty to avoid such passive material cooperation is not obligatory… At the same time, practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary… Those who, however, for reasons of conscience, refuse vaccines produced with cell lines from aborted fetuses, must do their utmost to avoid, by other means and appropriate behavior, becoming vehicles for the transmission of the infectious agent. In particular, they must avoid any risk to the health of those…who are most vulnerable.”(emphasis added)
In addition, the USCCB’s Ethical and Religious Directives for Health Care Services address the issue of therapeutic proportionality, which is the assessment an individual makes concerning the medical risk / benefit of a particular intervention, “no person should be obliged to submit to a health care procedure that the person has judged, with a free and informed conscience, not to provide a reasonable hope of benefit without imposing excessive risks.” #32
Healthcare organizations have an interest and a right to set policies that assure their patients are served in the safest environment possible. Historically, a vaccinated workforce has been an effective means of fostering that safety. While we recognize the importance of this consideration medically and ethically, the Church’s teaching is clear, that “as a rule” vaccination “must be voluntary” and based on an individual’s personal assessment in good conscience of the medical risks / benefits and morality of a particular vaccine. This is imperative.
As calls increase for universal vaccination as a condition of employment, a lack of accommodation will result in an individual’s inability to work in their chosen vocation, lead to further shortages of essential healthcare workers, while exacerbating existing hesitancy and distrust regarding the COVID-19 vaccines.
The exemption process should be clear and consistent while not placing an undue burden on those requesting an exemption, while protecting the health of all involved. As has been true throughout this pandemic, procedures followed to minimize risk of contracting or transmitting SARS-CoV-2 should be clearly delineated and those in particular who choose not to be vaccinated must agree to adhere to these provisions.
As an association of medical professionals, in consultation with physicians with expertise in the areas of infectious disease, epidemiology and public health, we believe we can respect the rights of individuals to make informed, conscientious decisions regarding mitigation, treatment and vaccination while safeguarding the interest of those we serve as we all continue the effort to end this pandemic. We will continue to provide accurate, current medical information in service to our members, our patients and our communities and are prepared to work with all concerned in the development of a process of exemption that protects the rights and health of everyone.
The Feast of St. Thomas More and St. John Fisher
About a century ago, 1929, G.K. Chesterton wrote, “Thomas More is more important at this moment than at any other moment since his death, even perhaps the great moment of his dying; but he is not quite so important as he will be in about a hundred years’ time.”
“Thomas More died the death of a traitor for defying absolute monarchy; in the strict sense of treating monarchy as an absolute. He was willing, and even eager, to respect it as a relative thing, but not as an absolute thing. The heresy that had just raised its head in his own time was the heresy called the Divine Right of Kings. In that form it is now regarded as an old superstition; but it has already reappeared as a very new superstition, in the form of the Divine Right of Dictators.”
Chesterton went on to speak of the checks on kings leading up to the reign of Henry VIII and then added, “But most certainly medieval men thought of the king as ruling sub deo et lege; rightly translated, ‘under God and the law,’ but also involving something atmospheric that might more vaguely be called, ‘under the morality implied in all our institutions.’ Kings were excommunicated, were deposed, were assassinated, were dealt with in all sorts of defensible and indefensible ways; but nobody thought the whole commonwealth fell with the king, or that he alone had ultimate authority there. The State did not own men so entirely, even when it could send them to the stake, as it sometimes does now where it can send them to the elementary school. There was an idea of refuge, which was generally an idea of sanctuary. In short, in a hundred strange and subtle ways, as we should think them, there was a sort of escape upwards. There were limits to Caesar; and there was liberty with God.”
In those few words, Chesterton explains a great deal to us of Fisher and More, of Henry and the Popes, for we are too much given to think of God as controlling us and secular government as establishing our freedom, when only the opposite is true.
The Law, before Jeremy Bentham and John Austin was sacred and difficult to change even in its human expression (changing Natural Law is never possible). It has become the instrument of the government to control those without power. It was not always so. The so-called progressive movement has made it that “more effective instrument for social engineering” that Justice Holmes wanted. In every just society, it was as much a limit on the powerful as it was a guide to the humble. We do well to note that Henry did not simply decree the death of More and Fisher for treason. He followed a long and complicated process that took years because there was, at least, a fear of the appearance of impropriety. He manipulated, cajoled, and reigned in dissidents to make them carry out a mockery of the process of law.
More never became cynical about this manipulation of the legal process even though he was apparently aware that his skills could not save him. He, along with his good friend Bishop Fisher, lamented the cowardice of the English bishops in not bringing truth to bear on the process. More and Fisher knew that the bishops’ resistance would have prevented the fall of England. Threatened with prosecution for premunire, obeying a foreign authority, the Bishops of those days surrendered to Henry’s Act of Supremacy. Bishop Fisher said, the fort is betrayed even by those who should have defended it. The day after they clergy surrendered, More resigned as Chancellor. When More saw Henry upon delivering his resignation, he spoke with composure and a piercing gaze that made Henry avert his eyes. In that moment, St. Thomas saw that Henry’s conscience was still operative and More never ceased appealing to it until the day of his death by beheading. (See, Wegemer, Thomas More: A Portrait of Courage, Princeton).
The Cathechism tells us, “Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey…For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths. 1776
Chesterton must have foreseen the tyranny of relativism and the rise of lawlessness that would engender the turmoil in our times. In Bolt’s A Man for All Seasons, in an exchange between Cardinal Wolsey and St Thomas, the author captures the truth within Chesterton’s words in a way that characterizes this current state of insanity. Wolsey tries to convince Thomas to drop his objections to Henry’s plotting, telling More that the realm needs a remedy. England needed an heir. More tells him to pray. The scene goes like this:
- WOLSEY (After a pause, rather gently) I believe you believe that. (Here he is referring to the fact that he prays for the good order in England.) You’re a constant regret to me, Thomas. If you could just see facts flat on, without that horrible moral squint; with just a little common sense, you could have been a statesman.
- MORE (After a little pause) Oh, Your Grace flatters me. (Pause)
- MORE I’ve already expressed my opinion on this-
- WOLSEY Then, good night! Oh, your conscience is your own affair; but you’re a statesman! Do you remember the Yorkist Wars?
- MORE Very clearly.
- WOLSEY Let him die without an heir and we’ll have them back again. Let him die without an heir and this “peace” you think so much of will go out like that! (He extinguishes the candle) Very well then . . . England needs an heir; certain measures, perhaps regrettable, perhaps not- (Pompous) there is much in the Church that needs reformation, Thomas- (MORE smiles) All right, regrettable! But necessary, to get us an heir! Now explain how you as Councilor of England can obstruct those measures for the sake of your own, private, conscience.
- MORE Well . . . I believe, when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties . . . they lead their country by a short route to chaos. (During this speech he relights the candle with another) And we shall have my prayers to fall back on.
Abortion-Tainted Vaccines: Is the Question Really One of Cooperation in Abortion?
The Vatican’s doctrinal note of December 17, 2020, approving the use of COVID-19 vaccines has Papal authority. (https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2020-12/vatican-cdf-note-covid-vaccine-morality-abortion.html, March 19, 2021). As I pointed out in my last post, this approval stretches back to the Pontificate of St. John Paul II, at least. The authentic teaching of the Church can be summed up in this manner: (1) Use of a vaccine tainted by connection to abortion, when there are no vaccines that are not connected to abortion, is remote material cooperation and the threat of serious illness and protection of the common good are sufficiently weighty reasons to use the vaccines without committing moral evil. (2) Vaccination is not morally required and one must use one’s own considered (prudential) judgment, in consultation with one’s physician, in the decision about the use of the vaccine. (3) In conscience one may refuse to use abortion-tainted vaccines but must take precautions to protect others in a manner that compares with the threats posed by non-vaccination.
All along Church authorities have stated that we should campaign for pharmaceutical companies to produce vaccines untainted by abortion until we force them to provide morally acceptable vaccines. This sounds like a good idea, alright. It is something that I have advocated in the past. But is it really effective? Are there any real consequences if the companies do not? I do not think so, frankly. It is not difficult to understand why that is. In reality, there are relatively few of us who care enough about this to raise much of a concern for the pharmaceutical companies. I do not mean to say that others do not care about the dignity of life.
The practical realities involving disease and vaccinations are overwhelming to us as individuals dependent on medicine’s modern miracles. Those who rule the pharmaceutical companies know, not only what is practical for the production of these vaccines, they also know that the desire for survival is strong enough that, at the end of the day, there are very few people who would endanger their children or themselves over a moral objection that is difficult to sell to most people. The use of cell lines produced from fetal tissue obtained 40 years ago is not a burning issue.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider has called for a new dimension of the Pro-Life Movement, saying: “The hour has now come that all people of goodwill, especially believing Catholics, all pro-life organizations have to stand up and make a fiery protest with one voice and say, ‘We will never agree [with], we will never admit [into our lives] these evils.’” (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/catholic-bishop-calls-for-new-pro-life-movement-to-protest-abortion-tainted-medicines-like-covid-vaccine. March 19, 2021)
Other persons, as well, have raised the objection that the position that the vaccines can be used without committing moral evil amounts to a grave scandal. Perhaps the most telling case is that of a person who wishes to object to the vaccination, but whose employer can point to a Church document wherein the Church says that the vaccine can be used. While the Church says that vaccination must be voluntary and that one can object, how much weight does that teaching carry when a person is forced to choose between taking the vaccine and losing employment? There does seem to be scandal involved since the person objecting is doing so on the basis of his or her conscience that will be violated by force. (“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” Matt. 18:6)
Convincing an employer that the vaccine is both morally acceptable and can be refused on the basis of conscience presents a major hurdle for the average employee. In the Crisis Magazine article, “Awakening Consciences about Abortion-Tainted Vaccines,” the author, Stacy Trasancos, writes of a case in which a priest refused to write a letter in support of a parishioner who wished to refuse the vaccine being required by an employer of its employees. The priest allegedly told her that she was morally obliged to take the vaccine. This was clearly erroneous and a scandal in itself. (https://www.crisismagazine.com/2021/awakening-consciences-about-abortion-tainted-vaccines. March 19, 2021)
As a moral theologian, and one who seeks to understand and present the truth upheld in the Magisterium, I cannot but ask if there is not something here that we have simply not recognized. I certainly trust the Church to guide me. We can be sure that, in essence, the statements of the Church on these matters are correct, the developments of the principles in specific situations are thoughtfully considered, and we are right in following these determinations. Should we not ask, however, in this complex situation if the Holy Spirit is not leading the Church to further clarify and define our teaching in light of current conditions? Perhaps, there is development in the principle of cooperation. Or, perhaps there is a need to identify sins other than the sin of abortion when considering with what sin the taking of a vaccine one cooperates.
Regarding the principle of cooperation, one would be reasonable in suggesting that the principle must now include the factor of the very wide dimensions of the cooperation, though passive and remote. We already evaluate the degree of cooperation on the basis of nearness to the act, on the basis of whether one’s cooperation is necessary or not, and whether or not one knows one is cooperating. But these factors apply, generally, to a single individual in an isolated situation. I would suggest that, in our age of global communication, we need to include the collective extent of the cooperation, looking not at a single individual, but at the whole mass of cooperators. One could argue that this is what the call for the campaign with the pharmaceutical companies is about. We can and should recognize that the evil is greater simply due to the widespread usage of the vaccines.
One of the aspects of this widespread usage is the fact that the acceptance of the vaccines in those circumstances does tend to influence or suppress the expression an individual’s conscience. What can one individual do to stand up against such vast numbers? Another aspect is that the acceptance of the cooperation on this wide scale appears as though it is a plan for material cooperation. Church moralists will recognize that this is problematic because it is difficult to distinguish this concession from acquiescence or an agreement of sorts. In other words, it begins to look more like implicit formal cooperation. I do not agree with what you are doing, but want its benefits. (Formal cooperation involves agreeing with the sin of the principle actor either in itself or for its benefits.) It would not be cooperation in abortion, obviously. But is that the only thing we should be concerned about? This leads to the other point about looking at what sin is actually the basis for cooperation.
There is a sin here that is regularly overlooked. That sin is the exploitation of human tissue for profit. The key to understanding this problem is that without the exploitation of the fetal tissue, there would be no for-profit exchanges developed involving these cell lines. The Church has clearly expressed its opposition to human organ trafficking. One cannot sell and buy human organs without being involved in moral evil. The Church has condemned commercial trafficking of human fetuses. The following statement is taken from Donum vitae, issued in 1987 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, approved and ordered published by Pope St. John Paul II: “The corpses of human embryos and fetuses, whether they have been deliberately aborted or not, must be respected just as the remains of other human beings. …Furthermore, the moral requirements must be safeguarded, that there be no complicity in deliberate abortion and that the risk of scandal be avoided. Also, in the case of dead fetuses, as for the corpses of adult persons, all commercial trafficking must be considered illicit and should be prohibited.” (I.4)
While it is conceivable that, almost without exception, the recipient of a COVID-19 vaccine is not formally complicit in abortion, can the same be said about commercial trafficking? What exactly does illicit commercial trafficking mean where vaccines are concerned? There is a great deal of commerce taking place involving cells derived from a dead fetus. This is something worthy of further study.
Front Line Moral 