“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
Tag: Cooperation
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.
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.
For anyone reading this post or listening to this episode of the podcast, the third in a series on cooperation in evil and the COVID-19 vaccines, I want to express once again that this is primarily intended for my parish as a way to access straightforward guidance on the Church’s moral stance on the vaccines. In the first post, I used a couple of examples to present the concept of cooperation in order to help everyone understand the reasoning of the Church’s position. In the second post, I talked about some of the background of the analysis of cooperation regarding vaccines. I gave a brief account, as well, of the development of the fetal cell lines from the two unborn children who were aborted deliberately. In this post, I will present information on how the vaccines are associated with these cell lines and, finally, present the authentic Catholic position on the vaccines utilizing the most authoritative statement to date from the Church’s magisterium.
There is a wide consensus among Catholic authorities, moralists, and many others that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines produced by Pfizer and Moderna “do not require the use of any fetal cell cultures in order to manufacture (produce) the vaccine.” The quote is taken a document prepared by the North Dakota Department of Health which includes Catholic references. (https://www.health.nd.gov/sites/www/files/documents/COVID%20Vaccine%20Page/COVID-19_Vaccine_Fetal_Cell_Handout.pdf.)
Cells grown from the original fetal cells were used to verify that a cell could take up the mRNA and produce the required spike protein to stimulate the necessary immune response. However, the use of these fetal cells was not necessary. As a close colleague of mine, a physician and researcher, put it, “The use of these cells for testing the mRNA vaccines was totally unnecessary because there were and are better ways of testing the effectiveness of these vaccines (i.e., animal and human studies). Because the use of these cells was unnecessary, it does not promote future use of aborted fetuses for testing.” This last point has long been important in the moral analysis.
While the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines rely, unnecessarily, upon the fetal cells for testing, there is more concern with the Janssen Pharmaceuticals vaccine produced for Johnson and Johnson. This type of vaccine did require the use of fetal cell cultures. It appears that the PER.C6 cell line, produced specifically for this type of vaccine production, was used in the production and manufacture of the COVID-19 vaccine that the company is marketing. While some Catholic ethicists claim that there are no “fetal body parts” in this vaccine, there are others who claim that the vaccine does, in fact, contain human DNA. I will continue to be watchful on this point. The presence of human DNA would certainly serve to further the concern expressed in the March 2, 2021, statement from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Doctrine and Pro-Life Committee Chairmen in which they suggest a greater connection to the aborted tissue and a greater moral concern for the use of this vaccine. They recommend choosing one of the others, all things being equal, if one is able to choose. That recommendation, too, seems reasonable.
Now, I will turn to the doctrinal statement issued by the Church’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued December 17, 2020. Here is the essential point of the document for our purposes in these posts on the subject: “[W]hen ethically irreproachable Covid-19 vaccines are not available (e.g. in countries where vaccines without ethical problems are not made available to physicians and patients, or where their distribution is more difficult due to special storage and transport conditions, or when various types of vaccines are distributed in the same country but health authorities do not allow citizens to choose the vaccine with which to be inoculated) it is morally acceptable to receive Covid-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses in their research and production process.” (emphasis in original)
The Vatican note, explicitly approved for publication by Pope Francis, indicates, as well, that “practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary.” https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20201221_nota-vaccini-anticovid_en.html. Those who, in conscience, do not wish to be vaccinated must do their utmost to avoid becoming a vehicle for infecting others.
This is an important statement. It has magisterial authority. It is consistent with prior statements by the Church on the matter of vaccines stretching across the last three pontificates.
Should we have a new effort within the Pro-Life Movement to rid ourselves of these morally-tainted vaccines? Many within the Church are beginning to say “yes.” We will look at that soon.
The Problem of Analyzing Cooperation in Evil and COVID-19 Vaccines-Part 2: How Do the Fetal Cell Lines Originate?
In Part 1, we started thinking about the Principle of Cooperation. When we speak of cooperation we are not referring to the morality of the act of the main actor. The question concerns the morality of another individual or other individuals who become involved with that act somehow. In my original example, Severius is the main actor and Aquila is the cooperator. Aquila’s actions are morally evaluated from her point of view and this degree of cooperation and its moral evaluation are not determined by the evil Severius has committed. In the second example it is quite clear that the Jones family is not morally responsible for Severius’s actions. We want to try to understand how the cooperators, like Aquila and the Jones family, can act without committing sin by immorally cooperating with those who do, in fact, commit evil.
Now, while I began talking about cooperation (the second aspect of the Bishops’ statements) –and we are going to return to the morality of the use of the COVID-19 Vaccines (the morality of that cooperation)–, the time has come to talk about the process of making and testing the vaccines. The reason I think this is the case is that we need to recognize that these vaccines are not made by taking cells or tissue from the organs of the body of an aborted child. I am not saying here that there was no abortion. Nor am I saying that the abortion was not the source for the original cells from which these cell lines were created. However, the phrases that are commonly used, “made from aborted babies,” or “made from aborted fetal tissue,” can create confusion. If one were to mean by using such phrases that these companies such as Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson and Johnson, are acquiring the bodies of aborted children, dissecting them, and testing or producing vaccines from them then that is incorrect. If that were the case, I believe the use of such vaccines would be unquestionably condemned by all those concerned about the dignity of life. That is not what we are talking about here. So what are we talking about?
What follows is the best information available to me at this time. Fortunately, the information is widely available and that helps establish its credibility. It comes from reliable sources and I am confident that it is a correct description of the origin of the cell lines used in the process.
Many of us in the Respect Life Apostolate began to find out in the year 2000 that cell lines developed from aborted fetal tissue were being used in varying degrees in the production of vaccines. My introduction to this fact came in a controversy over the Hepatitis A vaccine which was being mandated by the city of St. Louis. I helped address the matter for the Archdiocese of St. Louis. There was quite an uproar and a misunderstanding, just like we are having now, about what is morally permissible regarding cooperation. Based upon Catholic moral principles, I stated that the Hepatitis A vaccine could be used because the cooperation was remote, there were no moral alternatives, and the reason for the use of the vaccines was sufficiently serious. At the time, the Vatican had not issued any statements on the question of the production of vaccines. Many people were very upset with us over our position that held that the vaccines could be used morally, that people also had the right to conscientiously object, and that we would work for alternatives that were not morally compromised. Children of God for Life, at that time, was opposed to this position. However, many very good pro-life moralists and others agreed with us. Eventually, the Holy See did, as well. This link will take you to Children of God for Life’s treatment of that matter. https://cogforlife.org/morally-acceptable/. I can add that I was informed the Holy See directly intervened and approved the position I, along with many others, took on the matter. (Even given our different positions, I maintain that Children of God for Life does good work.)
The fetal cell lines being used to produce COVID-19 vaccines come from two sources. One cell line being used is called HEK-293. HEK stands for Human Embryonic Kidney. The line came from the 293rd experiment on the tissue. These cells came from a child aborted in 1973 and it appears that the abortion was not spontaneous but deliberate. At the time records were not kept of the details of the abortion. It occurred in the Netherlands. This cell line was developed for basic research. It has come to be used in the type of production used in the COVID-19 vaccines. It is also used in many other commercial operations, in food production and possibly in cosmetics. The other line is PER.C6, a retinal cell line developed from an 18 week old fetus. The abortion was elective and deliberate because the mother wanted it. The cell line was developed specifically for manufacturing of Adenovirus Vectors used in some vaccines. These cell lines have been “immortalized” as it is described and can divide and continue to multiply providing cells for research and development. They have certain qualities that make them desirable for research.These cell lines are patented and available for purchase. According to FDA reports, to the best of my knowledge, the scientists producing the cell lines were not involved directly in the abortions.
Scientific and medical sources, such as North Dakota Health (reliably Pro-Life, it seems), say that the vaccines that rely upon these cell lines will not require additional abortions. This point was an important factor in my original analysis. I continue to rely on the representations that this is true; and it does make sense given the specific requirements for this type of research and the production of these vaccines. This factor was also important for the Holy See in its evaluation of the position I and others took in respect to the Hepatitis A vaccine, in 2000. Of course, the idea is still repugnant and, because this type of research is desirable and profitable, it seems to me that there is that incentive to continue to develop such lines.
The Problem of Analyzing Cooperation in Evil and the COVID-19 Vaccines-Part 1
When the Bishops issue statements on the morality of Vaccines, from what I have seen, they refer to two distinct components, though not explicitly. One component of the statement addresses the morality of the vaccine itself. The other part of the statements attempts to address the degree of cooperation in evil of the user/recipient of the vaccine. The first part is based upon the facts of production of the vaccine. The second part, that of the use of the vaccine, is a bit more complex.
The Church’s moral analysis regarding the use of the vaccine (the second component of the statements) is based upon what is called the Principle of Cooperation. The Church says that we should avoid cooperation in evil as much as possible according to reason. Let’s be clear that when we speak about the morality of cooperation, we are not speaking about the morality of the act of the principal moral agent (the one who commits the original act of sin). The cooperator is someone who does something before or after the act that could be used to benefit or assist the principal agent.
Take the simple case of Severius, a fellow who decides to rob a bank. Severius is the principal moral agent in the bank robbery, the perpetrator, but he has help. He asked a friend, Aquila, to pick him up at an address several blocks from the bank. Aquila does not know why he asked her for a ride or even that she is near a bank, she is just happy to help her friend. Aquila cooperates in Severius’s crime. But her cooperation is called remote because she does not intend the crime and she does not know that her actions are helping Severius flee a crime. This is true whether Severius steals a little or a lot, whether he uses a weapon or not, whether he robs 1 bank or many, or even whether he injures or kills someone in the process or not. Aquila’s actions are only remotely related to the crime.
Clearly, Aquila is not the criminal. In fact, she knows only that she did a good thing in helping her friend with a ride. However, if Aquila learned that she was used by the criminal to profit from his crimes, she would have a very different view of her own actions. If she knew beforehand why he needed a ride, she would not have gone to meet him and help him. Her cooperation in Severius’s crime is greater when she knows. If she knows why she is there, she could be responsible for the crime to a greater degree. Her cooperation would be greater.
Let us change the situation to reflect a bit more of the situation with these vaccines. This will be more complex. This is only for the purpose of analysis and not to minimize the evil of abortion or the problems with the vaccines. In this case, Severius has robbed a bank and killed three people in the process. He is never identified and uses the money to buy shares in a number of start-up tech companies, becoming enormously wealthy over the course of several decades. When he dies, he leaves all of his vast fortune to a Trust Fund set up for assisting children who need a special life-saving medical procedure. Numerous families benefit from this over the course of 40 years. Finally, though, it is determined that the origin of the funds for this Trust was partially from the original bank robbery many years ago. It is also learned that Severius was part of a large crime “family” and that many such robberies had taken place by persons within that group and among other organized crime syndicates. The Jones family has a baby daughter needing the life-saving procedure and can only obtain the procedure with a grant from the Trust Fund. Under the Principle of Cooperation, would the Jones’s be morally required to allow their child to die rather than take the money?
Let’s begin to analyze this. The original bank robbery and killings by Severius are clearly evil actions. Money originally invested by him which led to his wealth was a product of those evil actions and it seems that it is a part of much larger evil enterprise. That evil is serious and undeniable. The question here (following the analogy) is, however, Is the Jones family cooperating in that evil committed by Severius by using the money from the Trust fund. And, if so, is that cooperation immoral and therefore to be avoided completely? On the other hand, is the life-saving procedure for the baby daughter a sufficiently serious reason that allows the family to take the money even given its origin?
Most statements on the question of vaccines, seem to indicate that, by analogy, the Jones family would be, in some very remote way, cooperating in the original evil. They are not knowing cooperators in the original acts, but have become associated with it by the use of the funds. Is this immoral?
Understand that I am not meaning in any way to trivialize the evil of abortion. I am trying to illustrate the thought behind the Principle of Cooperation and help you understand it, even if you do not completely agree with the conclusions being made.
I will leave this here for your rumination. Don’t jump to any conclusions. I will continue this analysis in a future post.
Front Line Moral 