I have written extensively about the need to conscientiously object to the "vaccine" and to "vaccination" coercion, but not solely based upon the concern that these treatments were illicitly made using aborted fetal lines.  Not that I don’t think that argument is important ( I have written about that scandal as well), but because it is only one argument for this debate and is one hard to advance in the face of Dignitas Personae 35.

The arguments that have unfortunately been ignored by Catholic “pro-vaxxers” and have been under argued by Catholic “anit-vaxxers” revolve around two considerations: 1. Medical ethics/natural law on accepting therapeutic risks and 2. the morality/immorality of coercion.  

When I argue against the jab, I go straight for the gizzard.  Yes, the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith states that a vaccine can be used in grave circumstances, even if the vaccine was procured illicitly with aborted fetal cell lines.  But 1. an experimental gene editing therapy is not a “vaccine” (this is not a semantic argument as words signify real states of affairs that must be minded if we are to be servants of the truth) and 2. combating a virus with a 99.7% recovery rate hardly seems grave enough to warrant using a new experimental treatment, let alone one made using aborted fetal cell lines.

Furthermore, it has always been the case in Western medicine that therapeutics are ethically or unethically prescribed based upon the principle of double effect.  If the potential harm done by the treatment outweighs the practical harm caused by the illness, then it is unethical to prescribe/accept such a treatment.  If an aspirin hit the market tomorrow that alleviated headaches, but caused an alarmingly high rate of blood clots in users, it would be a moral imperative for the man with the headache to find another remedy.  

In regards to coercion: the Catholic Church has never been in favor of coerced medical treatment, and one would fail miserably to defend such coercion using natural law principals.  And the tradition of Western medicine has always minded this too; patients must consent to the care they are given.  I ought to be able to reject my employer's coercion that I take an experimental jab with unknown long term side effects.  And my Church should clearly back me on that.  After all, part of my primary vocation as a father and husband is to be around to take care of my family.

I have only given a couple of arguments that defend my right to refuse this “vaccine”.  I could go into the concerns about how accepting the jab helps big pharma and governments to establish a precedent that only those who perpetually get new jabs can do commerce, hold jobs, rent housing, etc… in a new society that is anti-freedom, anti-family, and anti-free medical dialogue.  Observe a fourth round of shots now on the horizon for the most vaccinated nation in the world (Israel), and  observe children forced away from their parents and given the shot (Australia).

But what I have stated so far should be enough so that our Church, at the diocesan level, should be stating quite clearly that religious exemptions against the "vaccine" will be supported and that priests can sign letters against coercion for Catholics to submit to employers.  Instead we have a document with unclear language that doesn't seem to do us many real favors.  While the following is definitely appreciated, “For those who have discerned not to receive [a Covid-19 vaccine], they too can do so in good conscience”, the following is unclear and unhelpful, “There have been many who have asked their pastors to grant them exemptions; however, it is employers who grant exemptions, not pastors.”. So is this, “Employers and other institutions may require vaccination, but we support them reviewing and extending exemptions for personal religious reasons of conscience.”  That's not even an endorsement for us who wish to receive relgious exemption from vaccination.  That's just a statement saying that when employers grant such exemption, the diocese supports such employers.  Why is there not accompanying language condemening employers who coerce employees to receive "vaccination"?  Also, are we being told not to ask our pastors to sign letters appealing for religious exemption?  Clarification is needed.

Finally, a referral back to the CDF and the NCBC for conscience formation is loaded.  Those two entities have only addressed objections to the "vaccine" over the concerns of participation in abortion.  Other arguments are not addressed by either of those two entities.  I agree, priests do have a role to play in informing the consciences of those discerning to take the available treatments.  But how many priests have felt supported enough to do that in a way that would address the concerns I have laid out here?  Or to advise against the “vaccine” at all?  Especially publicly?  Especially when vaccine drives, even one that provided the Johnson and Johnson shot, which was explicitly condemned both by our diocese and the USCCB, are being run out of our diocesan schools?  It is not enough to give the “vaccine” objectors a line or two of written support when so much other communication, by word and action, has so heavily countered that support.  We continue to struggle to be heard at work, in our own parishes, or even in our own homes when we try to express valid concerns for the health of loved ones who consider these strange new treatments.  We are reasonable and faithful sons and daughters of the Church asking for help.  Hear us.

Formal clarification would be much appreciated.  Our livelihoods, authentic and sincere dialogue, and the trust of robustly Catholic men and women are all at stake.  And time is of the essence.  Imagine how much good could be done if just a few more dioceses published formal support for those appealing for religious exemption the way the Colorado bishops did.  

Unfortunately, I have already lost confidence in the ability for the present appeal I make (or those of others who have actually had the audience of the decision makers) to have any effect.  I hope to be proven wrong. Nevertheless, I will do my conscience and express what I, after much conscience formation and prayer, have truly discerned.  In agreement with the appeals of our clergy, that we all ought to form and exercise our consciences well, I hope others within the Church, from the top all the way down to us laity, do the same.

God bless,

Gadfly