Coercive COVID-19 Vaccine Practices: Prophylactic Vaccine Tyranny is Destroying the Common Good

Posted by Edward Richardon August 26, 2021August 28, 2021in Uncategorized4 Comments

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/.

Catholic Medical Association: Vaccination must be voluntary

Posted by Edward Richardon August 15, 2021in Uncategorized2 Comments

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 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.

Posted by Edward Richardon March 14, 2021March 15, 2021in Uncategorized1 Comment

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.