The purpose of this writing is to help those refusing the Covid-19 vaccine to defend themselves against those who argue that they are wrong in doing so.  It is also intended to dissuade those considering getting the vaccine.  Finally, this writing refutes arguments saying that the faithful must receive the vaccine as though it were a moral obligation.  If one understands the potential harm caused by the widespread distribution of this vaccine, and the threats posed by the bad actors who endorse it’s coercive distribution, it becomes clear that the faithful have good reason to reject this vaccine and to, in-turn, resist the harm its global distribution poses upon the world.  

    This essay begins by establishing some basic teachings of the Church on natural law theory.  It then addresses man’s obligation to follow a well informed conscience guided by reason.  After that, it covers particular dangers the Covid-19 vaccine and it’s coercive distribution pose, and the scandals presented in it’s endorsement by members of the Church.  Finally, it ends with apologetic answers to common objections posed to Catholics who reject the vaccine.


Man following the natural law while guided by reason

    In the Prima Secundae Partis of the Summa Theologiae, St. Thomas Aquinas laid out a comprehensive guide on how to live rightly as a Christian, and even more generally, simply as a human being per se.  Holding Aristotelian intellectualism in high regard, St. Thomas was determined to be logical in coming to conclusions about the Decalogue, free will, action, virtues, vice, and man’s ultimate end.

    St. Thomas was a natural law proponent. He knew that man is capable of concluding what is morally right or wrong by the use of reason alone.  In agreement with St. Thomas, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says that: “By his reason, man recognizes the voice of God which urges him ‘to do what is good and avoid what is evil.’ Everyone is obliged to follow this law, which makes itself heard in conscience and is fulfilled in the love of God and neighbor” (CCC  1706, Cf. Gaudium et Spes 16).  Through study of human nature, all men can reason toward what actions are always conducive to the common good and which ones intrinsically frustrate the common good.  All men can understand which actions violate his or another’s dignity as a human person and which actions fulfill him and others as human persons.  St. Paul affirmed this when he said “when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them” (Rom 2:14-15) . It has been a proud tradition of the Catholic Church, who declares herself infallible when teaching, via the Magisterium, on morals, to take seriously the study of the natural law.

    Why is this important? Because when you understand the basics of natural law theory, you quickly see that doing that which is illogical is, necessarily, an affront to human nature, and thus immoral. How so?

    To distinguish between man and all other creatures, Plato pointed to man’s ability to engage in discursive rational thinking.  Plato is often criticized for having focused too much on man’s rational abilities as the source and center for that which makes him more of a man and thus a greater participant in “the Good”.  One can easily read out of Plato that the most virtuous man is the wise man and the corrupt man is he who does not pursue wisdom.

     Aristotle presented a much more complete understanding of the human person and what makes a person “good”.  In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle placed more emphasis on the importance of mastering a variety of virtues.  After all, there are plenty of wise men who use their wisdom to do grave evil against others.  Intelligent tyrants have always been around and continue to corrupt the world today.  Aristotle believed that the good man uses his reason to determine right action and habitually exercises his will to do what is good.

     St. Thomas leaned heavily upon Aristotle, the writings of many saints before him (such as St. Augustine), the Tradition of the Church, and his own brilliance to put together his comprehensive analysis on the moral law.  To begin breaking down Thomas’ explanation on how one can determine the morality (or immorality) of an act, one could point to both the first questions of of speculative and practical inquiry.

    The first question of speculative inquiry is “what is it?”. The first question of practical inquiry is “what should be done?”. St. Thomas believed there was an integral connection between those two questions when analyzing any thing, including man. In order to know what something is, one should study what it does.  Conversely, what should be done corresponds to the nature of what is acting or what is being acted upon.  If I ask, “what should I do with a handsaw?”, I should study the nature of a handsaw.  If I misuse it, or use it in an irrational way, say to cut stone, I will break it.  If I ask “what am I to do as a human person?”, I need to reason as to who I am as a human person, discover the basic human goods that I am ordered toward as such, and then respect those goods for myself and for others.  Doing so, I will attain human fulfillment and happiness.  In turn, I will also advance the common good and improve my prospects for eternal life.  If I were to choose to act against reason and against my teleological ends (human fulfillment and union with the author of my human nature, God), I would end up a stupid, miserable, hapless, and sinful man destined for ends other than human fulfillment and eternal communion with God.
 
    For the most part, we as Catholics, along with most of the rest of the world, have been acting illogically about the Covid-19 virus and corresponding restrictions over the last 12 months.  At this point, most are quite skeptical of the numbers.  In the early stages of Covid-19, elective surgeries, where hospitals get most of their revenue from, were temporarily suspended.  Meanwhile, there was a financial incentive from Medicare to diagnose patients as Covid positive ($13,000) and mark death certificates as Covid related ($39,000).  No wonder the numbers kept climbing while stats such as the number of flu cases went down drastically this past year.  According to a Stanford study from the summer of 2020, this is a virus with around a .26% death rate. Yet a vaccine and vaccine passports are now being pushed hard in various states and in different places throughout the world.

    This Covid-19 vaccine has been rushed to production and distribution in record time, even though there has never been a successful vaccine made for the corona-virus before.  Adverse effects from this vaccine have piled up since early in its distribution, and some doctors have expressed concern about the vaccine’s impact on female fertility.  As we do not understand the long term side effects of this rushed vaccine, those who presently take it are essentially subjects of clinical trials.  Is one really being uncharitable to refuse the vaccine, or is one being logical?

    In Fides et Ratio , Pope John Paul II  emphasized the obligation of the faithful to guide decisions by reason.  The Church has always taught that any moral law that anyone is bound to, is rooted in the natural law, which participates in the eternal law, as clearly laid out in the Summa Theologiae by St. Thomas Aquinas.  In other words, a moral law that the faithful (or even a non-believer) must obey has to be grounded in reason.  When we do what is morally right, necessarily, we do what accords with our nature, designed by an infinitely wise and loving God.  It is entirely logical to reject the Covid-19 vaccine.

Man’s obligation to inform his conscience well and to follow it

“Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey.” (CCC 1776)

    Many have misused the Catechism’s insistence that man has a moral obligation to follow his conscience.  For example, one may rationalize, oftentimes guided by the poor advice of a priest, the use of artificial birth control as long as his “conscience” says it is okay.   The truth is that moral teachings consistently taught, without change, since the Didache of the Apostles and reaffirmed by Catechisms and encyclicals and the most reputable moral theologians for centuries  (as with this example), cannot be treated as sometimes prescriptions or merely as suggestions.  

    Man has an obligation both to follow his conscience, as well to sincerely inform it.  On this, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good of the Creator.” (CCC 1783)  This is an obligation that man must take seriously as a layman simply trying to understand whether he should take a medical treatment, such as the Covid-19 vaccine, as well as for a one in authority over and who instructs the faithful.

    For one who has the obligations of the later kind, it is imperative that diverse medical opinions are diligently and prayerfully considered as a precursor to official statements made from his office.  Especially where there is risk of scandal to those who may mistake a deviation or disagreement with such prescriptions as a kind of sinful disobedience against the Church.  Robust and authentic dialogue must be fostered to ensure that prescriptions are given which honor our Church’s tradition to pursue that which is most rational as well as to ensure that any possible scandal caused to the faithful is minimal.  In Ex Corde Ecclesiae Pope John Paul II taught on this importance of authentic academic when we pursuit to service of the common good.
     
     When we seek the truth, no matter how hard it is to adjust to it, we honor he who told us “I am... truth” (Jn 14:6) and “the truth will set you free”. (Jn 8:32)

    Throughout this pandemic, dissenting medical opinions that warned us not to lock down our societies, that masks are essentially ineffective, or those promoting cheap solutions (Hydroxycloroquine) to managing Covid side effects, have been de-platformed by the companies that have most benefited, economically, from lock-downs.  Among these companies are Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube.  Real authentic dialogue between a diverse array of scientists has, by and large, not happened regarding Covid-19.  Bishops throughout the world have been denied (or in some cases have denied) the fruits of authentic scientific dialogue on the validity of shutting down assemblies (like church congregations), masks, and the vaccine.  Nevertheless, policy decisions regarding all of these things, which will have radical long term effects upon our society, have all been made by Church leaders.  Again, you are not required to blindly obey any leader, regardless of his office, who makes rash decisions that you can reasonably argue may have harmful consequences for you and the rest of society.

A few common sense issues to consider regarding the push of the vaccine

1. The Pushers

    We have good reason to distrust many global figures who have promoted the vaccine.  Namely, Bill and Melinda Gates.  Melinda Gates has made several public statements against the teachings of the Catholic Church, including public comments saying that she expects the Church to change it’s “position” on contraception.  She claims that her witness as a “Catholic” and as an influential world figure justify her in making such comments.  She does much work to spread population control initiatives and abortion rights throughout third world countries.  Meanwhile, her husband has spoken on the need for population control to help the world maintain “sustainable growth” and to ensure the world reach “carbon neutrality”.  At a local level, such scandal would not be embraced by a community of believers.  A pious community would distance themselves from such figures in order to safeguard the rest of the faithful.  In this case, we see the Vatican embrace and regularly keep company with, and take advise from, population controllers such as Jeffery Sachs, Bill Gates, and others who have also been the most prominent promoters of the Covid-19 vaccine and its global distribution.  And when the Vatican takes cues from these actors to influence their promotion of this vaccine, most dioceses throughout the country fall in line, against better judgment.

2. Human Guinea Pigs

    For those who doubt the intentions of powerful world figures promoting, and now moving toward mandating the vaccine, consider the testimony of Obianuju Ekocha.  Ekocha is a Nigerian Catholic woman who has challenged the reasons as to why the Oxford vaccine study group chose South Africa to be the site to conduct the first human trials.  Yet again, the poor and vulnerable were being taken advantage of in their lack of recourse to those conducting the studies.  If there were severe side effects, what could the poor South Africans do about it?  Considering the reputation of such trials in African countries, including the sterilization of girls with a tetanus vaccine, called out by Catholic Bishops of Kenya, it is understandable why she has expressed such pain and grief over the plight of her people through vaccination experimentation.  At the time of this writing, a rushed Corona virus vaccine is being delivered at a point within a timeline where ordinarily, a new vaccine would be tested in third world countries.  The Neocolonists have moved on to the first world, and Church leadership stands shoulder to shoulder with them.

3. The Aborted Fetal Cell Lines Dilemma

    This has been stated well by Bishop Schneider, Bishop Strickland, et al. In their declaration, "On the Moral Illicitness of the use of Vaccines Made from Cells Derived from Aborted Human Fetuses".  In addition to their firm rebuke of a vaccine maintained through such illicit means, it is important to consider other scandals at stake if one tries to justify taking the vaccine anyway because the evil of the harvesting of aborted fetal cells is “remote”.

    Granted, it has been determined by the Catholic Medical Association that the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines have not been directly produced by aborted fetal lines, but instead that animal testing trials for each used such lines. 

Nevertheless, this use of aborted fetal lines for research has caused a crisis of conscience for many Catholics.  An examination of the Church’s teachings on similar issues reveals why:

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

    When Catholics were told to object to embryonic stem cell research as an absolute evil, many were asked by neighbors questions such as “If your child had a condition that could only be cured by stem cell therapy that came from research on destroyed embryos, 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, we were all quite sensitive to the precedent set if we allowed for such objectification of some human life for the sake of others.

    It is reasonable then to ask the question, if it is morally acceptable to receive a vaccine created by developers who used aborted fetal lines in testing, will there come a point where it would be okay to to accept stem cell therapies developed from embryonic stem cell research?  

    The acceptance of information attained by morally illicit means has been, and continues to be a hot topic of debate among theologians.  The school of thought on what constitutes sufficient “remoteness” in participation with illicit means to acquire something varies.  Considering the ambiguity, it is justifiable that many have decided to abstain from receiving the vaccine as an objection to testing that uses lines from aborted fetal cells.


Common objections and answers

Objection: You can’t be holier or more correct than the pope/church!

A: I think what is often meant by this statement is that one cannot be more “right” than the Church.  On the question of holiness, that should be easy to answer: of the long canon of canonized saints in our tradition, a small fraction of them are popes.  Our Church has even been led by morally corrupt popes with illegitimate children.  Our first pope ended up as a repentant apostate who denied our Lord three times.  Saints such as Mother Theresa, St. Maximillian Kolbe, or St. John who stood at the foot of the cross with our Lord are all examples of saints who may very well have been holier than the popes of their respective times.  

    As I do not seek to knock down a straw man (nor attempt to have an out of place and inappropriate argument about anyone’s holiness per se), let’s address this more challenging, albeit inadequately stated objection that has been made recently to those disagreeing with endorsements of the vaccine made by the Pope as well as many bishops.

    Can I disagree with the Pope’s pastoral advice?  In Galatians chapter 2, St. Paul told us about an occasion where he “opposed [Peter] to his face, because he stood condemned” (Gal 2:12)  St. Catherine of Sienna told Pope Gregory XI that “[he] not be a timorous child but manly” when she wrote to him to move the papacy from Avignon back to Rome.  The faithful not only have a history of calling out papal scandal, they have an obligation to do so.

    Pope Francis has, at most, given pastoral advice regarding the vaccine.  One thing that most Catholics seem to have poor catechesis on is what Magisterial authority actually is.  Some Catholics go around denying the Magisterial authority of the Church all together and openly declare that they get to choose whatever they wish to believe in and still call themselves Catholic.  This phenomenon has colloquially been referred to as “Cafeteria Catholcisism”.  Other Catholics have an almost scrupulous tendency to believe that every utterance of the Pope must be followed to the “T”, lest one be in some sort of pseudo-schism with the Church.   

    The Extra-ordinary Magisterium of the Church teaches infallibly when the Church calls an ecumenical council to declare “canons”. (William May, Introduction to Moral Theology p. 248)  There have been an average of around one of these types of councils per century, starting with the council of Nicea in 325 AD.  From this council, we get the “Nicean Creed”, which if one were to deny any part of this creed, he would be “Anathema” (condemned by the Church).  If I were to, for example, deny that Christ is “of the same essence” (homoousios) as God the Father, I would be anathema and, in this case, I would be a heretic.  I would be denying that which has been explicitly taught by the Extra-ordinary Magisterium of the Church.

    A pope could also speak “ex Cathedra” or “From the Chair of Peter” and declare something infallible when, “as supreme shepherd and teacher of the faithful… he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals” (May,  248, cf. Lumen Gentium 25, cf. Vatican Council I, DS 3074).  This has happened exactly two times in the history of the Church, both in the 19th century.  Once regarding the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and once regarding the Assumption of Mary.  

Well that’s pretty clear.  What about this “Ordinary Magisterium”?

    Teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium are a little trickier… but not by much.  Things that the Church has taught always and universally throughout the world are Infallibly true by the Ordinary Magisterium.  As Lumen Gentium puts it,

     Although the bishops, taken individually, do not enjoy the privilege of infallibility, they   
     do, however, proclaim the doctrine of Christ infllibly on the following conditions;    
     namely, when, even though dispersed throughout the entire world but preserving for    
     all that amongst themselves and with Peter’s successor the bond of communion, in
     their authoritative teaching concerning faith or morals, they arein agreement that a  
     particualr teaching is to be held definitively and absolutely (May, 248. cf. Lumen
     Gentium 25, cf. Vatican Council I, Dei Filius DS 3011).

For example, the Church has taught that Contraception is a moral evil since the Didache of the Apostles.  This has been reaffirmed by several Catechisms of the Church, such as the Roman Catechism, and more recently the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 2370).  Popes have re-affirmed this in encyclicals such as Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae.  Pope John Paul II spoke clearly about it in Familiaris Constortio ( Familiaris Contortio, 32).  What if my own priest or even bishop were to contradict something taught by the Ordinary Magisterium?  If this were to happen, it is an understatement to say that he does not have the authority to overturn such clear Tradition exercised so consistently and for so long by the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church.  This should be especially obvious when, for example, a pope makes off the cuff remarks that are not expressed in a way that should signal that they have ANY magisterial weight.  Popes frequently make such remarks when interviewed by Italian newspaper reporters on airplanes that are a bit “off”, theologically speaking.  That is not a criticism, that is just the nature of off the cuff theological remarks; they are not always the most refined statements.  

    Years ago, a student asked me if dogs go to heaven.  I answered in the negative.  By his response, I believe he thought he had “gotten me” when he asked, “so are you disagreeing with Pope Francis!??”  Apparently there was a story at that time that the Holy Father had comforted a boy who asked if he would see his dog in heaven.  According to this story, Pope Francis told the boy that he indeed would see his dog in heaven (though there is controversy suggesting that Pope Paul VI made the claim instead).  I answered, “No, I am not disagreeing with Pope, I am agreeing with St. Thomas Aquinas and the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church.”

    In the case of Pope Francis’ endorsement of the vaccine, the Pope has made pastoral recommendations.  The value of these recommendations lie in their compatibility with the teachings of the Magisterium and in their reasonableness.  So far as it is known, while there have been statements made on vaccines , such as those made by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's Dignitas Personae on Certain Biological Questions, there is not Magisterial teaching that one MUST take a particular vaccine.

    In regards to the reasonableness of statements made by the Holy Father endorsing the vaccine, here the Pope has, practically speaking, made statements of medical advice and direction, of which he is unqualified.  None of his statements have been made in any context that would suggest that he is exercising teaching authority from his office as the Pontiff.  In other words, you have been told by a man who has never seen your medical records and is not a doctor that you should get a specific medical treatment of which we have no idea what the long term adverse side-effects will be, especially for you as an individual person or patient.  

    Just as I would not ask a doctor to fix my home’s plumbing problems, I am not obligated to follow general prescriptions from the Theologian of the highest office in the Catholic Church that may or may not be conducive to my specific medical best interests.  If I were to do so, I would not be respecting the Church’s longstanding teachings about respect for subsidiarity in addition to doing something potentially unreasonable and dangerous to my health.  And if I were to compromise my own health for some fear that I would be a “bad Catholic” for choosing against the vaccine, then I would actually be someone who does not respect or care for my own basic human good of health,  Additionally I would perhaps let down my family if I were harmed by this vaccine in a way that disabled me from fulfilling the essential functions of my vocation.  I would be one who actually disregards, or carelessly does not consider, the natural law when acting.  This would be an immoral thing to do.

    In a world where a rushed vaccine is being promoted by some of the most disreputable bad actors, and  when vaccine passports are being pushed in many states and other places in the world, one could even argue a moral obligation to reject the vaccine. At least he most certainly has an obligation to speak out against the compulsion of citizens to take it.  But there is no theological Tradition upon which to base a dictate, by any leader in the Church, to receive this questionable drug.  Far from it.

Q: What about that Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith document?  Doesn't it seal that one cannot object to the vaccine?

     While section 35 of the 2008 document, "Dignitas Personae on Certain Biological Questions", reaffirmed in 2020, asserts that one can have a morally valid reason to accept a vaccine obtained via illigitimate means, this document by no means eliminates all moral arguments against the Covid-19 vaccine.  First, many would object to calling the vaccine in question a true vaccine.  Further, though such a document may say that you CAN receive a vaccine, that does not mean you SHOULD receive a particular vaccine.  And the document certainly does not prohibit you from telling others that they should not take this vaccine.  I can play a football game and run the ball every play (it's legal), but that does not mean that I should.  I am morally permitted to take aspirin for a headache, but I should not take an aspirin that turns out to have an enormous host of side effects and could do me grave bodily harm.  As a person with a moral obligation to look out for my health, I should refrain from taking such an aspirin and I should warn others against doing so.  It's a morally upright thing to do.

Q: If one loves his neighbor, shouldn’t he receive the vaccine in order to protect him?

A: As the state implements vaccine passports, thus forcing people to take a rushed and little tested vaccine, it becomes easier by the day to argue that it is actually quite loving to reject the vaccine as a measure to stand up for human rights.  Once a 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 the state be allowed to impose or put in you?  Will the state be allowed to make decisions on your fertility if it is determined that your family’s collective carbon footprint is too large?  Will you be branded unloving or will you be punished for refusing to stand for “environmental justice” if you refuse sterilization? 

    If you know who the bad actors are promoting this vaccine and what they may intend to do after setting this precedent, then it should be imperative that you, at the least, object to this vaccine and any state compulsion to take it.  Failure to do so may be a sin of omission and a sin against charity if one knows the trajectory of where compulsive vaccination will take society.  Such a sin would be lessened or magnified based upon the position one may have and the impact he could have in objecting vs. if he were to sit idly by or to even help these bad actors by promoting its distribution along with them.


     Remember that you are a moral agent who will have to answer for his actions, omissions, and the diligence taken in forming his conscience when trying moral situations come up.  If it is of any help to you, please use this information to inform yourself and others.  Study the various "vaccines" out there and talk about this issue eloquently.  Above all, please act with sincerity and charity as you defend yourself, the intellectual tradition of the Church, and human rights.

God bless,

Gadfly