In a recent joint statement by Cardinal Janis Pujats (Metropolitan archbishop emeritus of Riga), Tomash Peta (Metropolitan archbishop of the archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana), Jan Pawel Lenga, (Archbishop/bishop emeritus of Karaganda), Joseph E. Strickland (Bishop of Tyler, Texas), Athanasius Schneider, (Auxiliary bishop of the archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana), the good bishops oppose the argument that vaccines derived from aborted fetal lines are morally permissible based upon the remote nature of the cooperation one has in the evil of abortion when taking such a vaccine.

     In this document, they argue that the evil of abortion is so grave that vaccines made from aborted fetal lines cannot be morally accepted.  In the present article, I would like to add to their argument as well as look at other reasons one ought to reject the Codivd-19 vaccine.

     Twenty years ago, the Catholic Church clearly taught the absolute evil of embryonic stem cell research.  In the public square, we all objected, along with the Church, quite strongly to embryonic stem cell research because it required the direct and deliberate destruction of human embryos. 

     Today, to justify accepting vaccines that were derived from aborted fetal cell lines, many within the Church are appealing to the "remoteness” of the evil that was once committed to make the vaccines.  When we were told to object to embryonic stem cell research as an absolute evil, many of us were asked by our neighbors questions such as “If your child had a condition that could only be cured by stem cell therapy that came from embryonic stem cells, you really mean to tell me that you would not accept that therapy for your dying child?” And we answered with, “The ends do not justify the means” and “It would not be right for me to save my child through a therapy that only exists because of the murder of another”.  Our inclination to defend the most vulnerable and defenseless in society from being exploited through their murder carried our proud disposition and kept us fighting from firmly atop the moral high ground.  At that time, I believe we were also still sensitive to the precedent set if we allowed for such objectification of some human life for the sake of others.  If it’s ok to murder a microscopic human to make a medical therapy, then why wouldn’t it be ok to murder any other person in order to attain such an end?

     Over time, the messaging started to become more difficult to follow.  Most faithful have heard very little about embryonic stem cell research over the last fifteen years.  It's as if the issue was HOT button for awhile, then disappeared in the consciousess of most of the faithful.  Yet, for those of us that kept up, we know that the Vatican has made some strong statements against the destruction of human embryos for scientific purposes.  In 2008, The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's Instruction Dignitas Personae on Certain Biological Questions stated,

abortion “is to be applied also to the recent forms of intervention on human embryos which, although carried out for purposes legitimate in themselves, inevitably involve the killing of those embryos… [T]he use of human embryos or fetuses as an object of experimentation constitutes a crime against their dignity as human beings who have a right to the same respect owed to a child once born, just as to every person”.  These forms of experimentation always constitute a grave moral disorder. (34)

Yet, simultaneously, in the same document, the Congregation also stated,

Grave reasons may be morally proportionate to justify the use of such “biological material”. Thus, for example, danger to the health of children could permit parents to use a vaccine which was developed using cell lines of illicit origin, while keeping in mind that everyone has the duty to make known their disagreement and to ask that their healthcare system make other types of vaccines available. (35)

     I would like to voice the same concern about consistancy (inconsistancy?) that I had 10 years ago when I first read that document while studying moral theology at the graduate level and making some significant moral decisions that would affect my growing family at the same time.  If it is ok to take a vaccine derived from fetal cells, because the harvesting of the fetal cells was some time ago, or because your participation is "remote", then when is it ok to accept embryonic stem cell therapies? At some point (though I don’t know how this would be measured), would enough time pass by that it would be okay to receive stem cell therapies derived from murdered human embryos?

     Further, if the answer is “yes”, upon what grounds should the faithful be expected to reject medical treatments derived from murder at all?  Is vital organ harvesting okay as long as enough time passes by before the transplant happens?  What would make your participation in the act of removing an organ from an orphan child “remote” enough for it to be morally acceptable to receive the organ from vendors? 

     I think it is fair to address another angle by which one might fallaciously attempt to justify receiving a vaccine derived from aborted fetal lines… Proportionalism. What is Proportionalism? Proportionalism, also known as the “Principle of Proportionate Good” is an illogical moral theory that has been around forever. It reared its ugly head and spoke loudly and obnoxiously midway through the 20^th century. What became available in the mid 20^th century that would inspire the propagation of some bogus moral theories that have plagued the Church since?

     When John Rock (a professed Catholic) invented the birth control pill, little did he know the effect it would have on the Catholic Church.  If the Church were to continue to claim that the ordinary Magisterium is infallible when teaching on faith and morals, there was a ton of prior teaching that would make it impossible for a Pope to declare, “the Church has always taught that contraception is a practice married couples can partake in.”  It just wasn’t an option.  Some moral theologians proposed a theory, instead, that the Church has always taught that moral evils can be practiced in certain situations, for serious reasons, as long as the good to be gained form the act is “greater” than the evil that is being averted through the act.  Such theologians would even erroneously cite St. Thomas Aquinas and pretend the theory of “Proportionalism” (never taught by the Church) was really just the Principle of Double Effect.

     Herein lies the fallacy: when Thomas Aquinas wrote about issues such as Just War Theory, Legitimate Self-Defense, and Just Tyranicide he wrote about acts that by their very nature were not already determined to be moral evils.  Even using violence, one can deliberately cause a physical evil against someone who is threatening a physical evil against him.  The very matter of the act is qualified here as an act of self defense as opposed to an act of murder.  Aquinas never, and neither has the Church, taught hat one can deliberately commit an act that is immoral in order to try to bring about a good. This is a basic moral tenant that does not require one pass Ethics 101 to understand: saying “it’s good to do evil” is a blatant contradiction of terms. It is never morally permissible to directly and deliberately commit a moral evil.

     St. Thomas does mention the use of proportionate force as a factor that must be respected in determining whether one’s act of “defense” is actually something more akin to manslaughter or murder (if I protect myself from a slap with a gun, then I am not engaging in an act of self-defense), but Thomas never suggested that one can do an evil if there are “proportionate” goods to come out of the act.

     This all being said, the Congregation's validity or invalidity in teaching on the acceptability of vaccines derived from illicit means, then, hinges upon whether abortion simply is, or is not, heneous enough to determine the act of taking such a vaccine derived from illicit means to be an act so radically different from, for example using products made via slave labor, that any participation is absolutely immoral by it's nature.  At the end of the day, we are asking the question of whether or not taking a vaccine derived from a murdered baby is an act of participation in murder.  Honestly speaking, I am still waiting for someone to do an adequate job arguing that one either way.

     I at least feel confident enought, though, to say that an argument to receive the vaccine simply because it yields a "greater good" is an insufficient argument.  I would also advise that if someone tries to convince you that taking a vaccine derived from fetal cells is morally acceptable simply because you must sometimes take advantage of an immoral act in order to attain a “greater good”, counter thus: a man can be murdered and robbed of his kidneys so that two people can live, for example, but the “greater good” of two people now living with a kidney apiece does not justify the murder.  Again, the "greater good argument" is simply insufficient. 

     Finally, I would like to address one truly invalid argument for "why one should take the vaccine".  It has been said many times and in different ways, but the claim, essentially, that one must “love his neighbor and take the vaccine”, is naive at best and sickly manipulative at worst.  If humanity really ends up being forced to take a rushed and barely tested vaccine that is highly experimental and possibly DNA altering, then, I argue, one more genuinely loves his neighbor by refusing to get the vaccine.  For once this precedent is set that a small number of people get to decide whatever goes in anyone’s body when a “crisis” merits it… what will be the end of it? What else will these strangers behind the curtain be able to put into you? And what is the real crisis that warrants such loss of human freedom as basic bodily autonomy? An illness that kills .1% (maybe) of those who get it? What else does big pharma and whomever else benefits from all sorts of mandatory shots for all humanity get to put in you? Liquid soma, perhaps? Steralizing agent?  If you don’t understand the potential for trans-humanistic abuses against all mankind in terms of mandatory implementation of bio-metric control and nano-technology, then you need to do your homework. One does not express his love for his neighbor by helping to advance a trans-humanist agenda that helps make diabolical billionaires richer while simultaneously enslaving mankind.  And if that's all crazy talk, please show me.

     Again, the point of this article was not to argue that you cannot receive a Covid 19 vaccine.  Do your own research as to which Big Pharma brands have been developed by which different means.  Find out exactly what the mRNA vaccine does.  If you believe there is no legitimate trans-humanistic concern, please dialogue about it below.  I am, however, 100% convinced that one in good conscience can refuse to take this vaccine and is under no moral obligation to keep his opinions against the vaccine to himself.  If the Spirit moves you, protest the vaccine, ask your clergy to join that cause while you are at it.  And as always, keep your mind and heart in prayer and God bless you.

-Gadfly