Vaccines, The Church, and Covid-19

Only one American voice appeared to boldly and publicly speak out among the episcopate against Covid-19 (Sars-Cov-2) vaccines that have been in development using fetal cell lines from aborted children. Bishop Strickland of Tyler, Texas may not have been alone in his concerns but it often appeared so. The bishop was unambiguous in his insistence that these new vaccines must be made by morally complicit means not using fetal cell lines, and he spoke clearly and consistently while they were being developed at the earliest stages. Now, many of his brother bishops are speaking out in favor of administering vaccines that are either morally compromised or potentially compromised. I'm going to try to work through this a bit.

For an important building block, here's what the Pontifical Academy for Life had to say in Moral Reflections On Vaccines Prepared From Cells Derived From Aborted Human Foetuses in 2005:

"If someone rejects every form of voluntary abortion of human foetuses, would such a person not contradict himself/herself by allowing the use of these vaccines of live attenuated viruses on their children? Would it not be a matter of true (and illicit) cooperation in evil, even though this evil was carried out forty years ago?" 

"It is up to the faithful and citizens of upright conscience (fathers of families, doctors, etc.) to oppose, even by making an objection of conscience, the ever more widespread attacks against life and the "culture of death" which underlies them. From this point of view, the use of vaccines whose production is connected with procured abortion constitutes at least a mediate remote passive material cooperation to the abortion, and an immediate passive material cooperation with regard to their marketing. Furthermore, on a cultural level, the use of such vaccines contributes in the creation of a generalized social consensus to the operation of the pharmaceutical industries which produce them in an immoral way. Therefore, doctors and fathers of families have a duty to take recourse to alternative vaccines (if they exist), putting pressure on the political authorities and health systems so that other vaccines without moral problems become available. They should take recourse, if necessary, to the use of conscientious objection with regard to the use of vaccines produced by means of cell lines of aborted human foetal origin. Equally, they should oppose by all means (in writing, through the various associations, mass media, etc.) the vaccines which do not yet have morally acceptable alternatives, creating pressure so that alternative vaccines are prepared, which are not connected with the abortion of a human foetus, and requesting rigorous legal control of the pharmaceutical industry producers. As regards the diseases against which there are no alternative vaccines which are available and ethically acceptable, it is right to abstain from using these vaccines if it can be done without causing children, and indirectly the population as a whole, to undergo significant risks to their health. However, if the latter are exposed to considerable dangers to their health, vaccines with moral problems pertaining to them may also be used on a temporary basis. The moral reason is that the duty to avoid passive material cooperation is not obligatory if there is grave inconvenience. Moreover, we find, in such a case, a proportional reason, in order to accept the use of these vaccines in the presence of the danger of favouring the spread of the pathological agent, due to the lack of vaccination of children" (passage in italics mine).

In 2017, this same Pontifical Academy for Life in a short paper called Clarifications On The Medical and Scientific Nature of Vaccination put out the following regarding aborted human fetal cell lines. It was commenting on the Italian vaccine issue but is cited by church authorities throughout the universal church including justification for using Covid-19 vaccines.

"In the past, vaccines had been prepared using cells from aborted human fetuses, however currently used cell lines are very distant from the original abortions" and "It should be noted that today it is no longer necessary to obtain cells from new voluntary abortions, and that the cell lines on which the vaccines are based in are derived solely from two fetuses originally aborted in the 1960’s."

It should also be noted that the authors of this paper waste no time in letting their audience know that these abortive cell lines are decades old. Why does this matter?

"...the cell lines currently used are very distant from the original abortions and no longer imply that bond of moral cooperation indispensable for an ethically negative evaluation of their use".

Okay, it matters because it was so long ago. The origins of these vaccines are apparently no longer relevant. It would seem the statute of limitations has run out for any grievance we may have using vaccines made from the cell lines of children who were ripped out of their mother's womb a half century ago or longer. In 2005 the Academy stated that pro-lifers would have contradicted themselves by allowing the use of these vaccines on their children (under normal conditions) but in 2017 the same group claims that there is no "moral cooperation" for taking the same vaccines. It is a contradiction...unless the 2017 authors don't "reject every form of voluntary abortion of human foetuses" as is assumed by the 2005 authors.  

"As for the question of the vaccines that used or may have used cells coming from voluntarily aborted fetuses in their preparation, it must be specified that the "wrong" in the moral sense lies in the actions, not in the vaccines or the material itself."

Bishop Brennan of Fresno, CA disagrees. “If material has been used that is unacceptable on a moral level in any stage of the process for the development of a vaccine, that is from design … the testing … the production … any stage, anything in between, if it’s using objectionable material, we can’t use it, we can’t avail ourselves of it.”

Are the authors of the 2017 report denying that there is even such a thing as morally objectionable vaccines? They seem to be saying that regardless of the contents, no vaccine is problematic in itself but only in how we use it. If this is the case, then exactly what "actions" do the authors deem "wrong" when using vaccines from abortive cell lines? In other words, if there is no "wrong" in the vaccine itself then aren't all vaccines morally equivalent and therefore permissible to use? In turns out that, yes, that's indeed what the next part says.

"The technical characteristics of the production of the vaccines most commonly used  in childhood lead us to exclude that there is a morally relevant cooperation between those who use these vaccines today and the practice of voluntary abortion. Hence, we believe that all clinically recommended vaccinations can be used with a clear conscience and that the use of such vaccines does not signify some sort of cooperation with voluntary abortion. While the commitment to ensuring that every vaccine has no connection in its preparation to any material of originating from an abortion, the moral responsibility to vaccinate is reiterated in order to avoid serious health risks for children and the general population." (Italics mine)

What commitment? They just eliminated the duty to not materially cooperate with evil. The authors of the 2017 report are clearly much more interested in avoiding health risks than they are in being consistent with and adhering to the moral standards laid down by the 2005 report. The longer, more detailed, and highly referenced earlier report mentions abortion in the context of the "culture of death" and goes in to detail regarding active and passive cooperation with evil as well as mitigating circumstances. Regarding this earlier document, the short, non-referenced statement from 2017 mentions that the 2005 report "in the light of medical advances and current conditions of vaccine preparation, could soon be revised and updated". That was nearly three-and-a-half years ago. I hope they keep taking their time because what they've shown us so far is leading to moral confusion.

Perhaps inadvertently adding to the confusion are Bishop Kevin J. Rhoades of Fort Wayne-South Bend, Indiana, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine, and Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City, Kansas, chairman of the USCCB Committee on Pro-Life Activities, who state in a memo on November 20 to their fellow bishops that "Neither the Pfizer nor the Moderna vaccine involved the use of cell lines that originated in fetal tissue taken from the body of an aborted baby at any level of design, development or production,” but “They are not completely free from any connection to abortion, however, as both Pfizer and Moderna made use of a tainted cell line for one of the confirmatory lab tests of their products." They conclude that, “There is thus a connection, but it is relatively remote,” and “Some are asserting that if a vaccine is connected in any way with tainted cell lines, then it is immoral to be vaccinated with them. This is an inaccurate portrayal of Catholic moral teaching.” The question that needs to be asked is just how much of a connection does there need to be for a vaccine to be immoral? Do companies like Pfizer and Moderna have no choice to safely test their new product except by using aborted cell lines? If so, then it seems their moral culpability may be lessened, but if not then was it simply a matter of convenience or was it a deliberate attempt to get our bishops and pro-lifers to compromise with evil? At the end of the memo they quote the Pontifical Academy For Life stating that there is "a proportional reason, in order to accept [morally problematic] vaccines" in order that public health is not sacrificed. It also states that "There remains a moral duty to continue to fight and to employ every lawful means in order to make life difficult for the pharmaceutical companies which act unscrupulously and unethically." That's strong language, but it seems to be somewhat undermined by the Academy's 2017 interest on just making sure people keep up with their shots at the expense of  diminishing moral culpability. I think that there is no doubt that it can be difficult to navigate this moral mountain, but by my reading we may be on a slippery slope.

The 2005 report got it right and the 2017 paper got much wrong. It is not morally acceptable for Catholics to take a vaccine created with fetal cells from killed babies unless people who "...are exposed to considerable dangers to their health, vaccines with moral problems pertaining to them may also be used on a temporary basis." However, the reaction to Covid-19 has much more to do with politics than science. By now, this should be clear to anyone who is paying attention. For those who are not too sure about this, refer to the information on Covid on our page Outside Attacks. Not only are we not living in a new age of the Spanish Flu or Bubonic Plague, but there are some pharmaceutical insiders who think vaccines combating this virus is largely irrelevant now anyway. And what about unknown problems and side effects of these new vaccines, could the 'cure' be more harmful than the sickness? Maybe the death of the priest who passed away after volunteering as a test subject for a new vaccine had to do with the vaccine and maybe it didn't, but it should at least cause us to pause and seriously consider if these coronavirus vaccine's are worth the potential risk. Among the young and healthy who are seldom hospitalized or die of Covid this is an especially good question.

Nobody is saying that Covid -19 is not serious for some of us. Nobody is diminishing the thousands of deaths of the elderly and others with underlying health conditions. Maybe vaccines will help certain people, but a proper perspective on this situation needs to be kept...or cultivated. An understanding of who is mostly vulnerable and who is not needs to be recognized. Public policy built on information and not fear and political opportunity needs to be implemented. Whether people decide to take these vaccines or any vaccine should almost always be their decision alone to make - free from government mandates, media pressure, or public coercion - after all available info about the vaccines are made public. The USCCB did a very good thing by writing Commissioner Hahn at the FDA on April 17, but all U.S. bishops could have done a much better job of throwing their weight behind the Texas bishop in the early days of the development of this coronavirus vaccine in insisting that big pharma not use fetal cell lines in any stage of development.