Search
-
August 12, 2021There is a significant difference between “may” and “must.” This is a key point in the ongoing conversation regarding the ethics of vaccines and vaccine mandates, including COVID vaccines. This debate is heating up as students return to school, and workplaces are considering ways to slow the spread of COVID and avoid further lockdowns and disruptions.
I want to state at the outset that I strongly encourage those who are eligible to receive the COVID vaccine and who do not have a serious reason for not doing so to get vaccinated. The Church is not anti-science. The rapid development of an effective COVID vaccine to battle the global pandemic is a triumph, though not an unmitigated triumph.
Months before a COVID vaccine received FDA approval for emergency use, Catholic ethicists and others had been voicing concerns that vaccines under development should not rely on tainted cell lines derived from abortion either in their production or testing. Such a connection would involve at least some degree of material cooperation in the moral evil of abortion. It also could prove to be a deterrent to a successful rollout due to conscientious objection by some who will not receive a tainted vaccine.
As it turns out, all the approved vaccines have involved the use of abortion-derived cell lines harvested many years before either in their production or in testing.
Nevertheless, given the gravity of the public health crisis and the remoteness of the level of cooperation in the moral evil of abortion both the Vatican and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops judged that Catholics may licitly receive these vaccines. If possible, one should choose the vaccine with the least or no connection to abortion, should such a vaccine be developed.
The judgment of the Vatican and the U.S. bishops regarding the moral permissibility of receiving the COVID vaccine was received by many as a moral and ethical endorsement of these vaccines. That would be overstating the facts. In effect, these statements indicate that a person in good conscience can discern to accept the vaccine, even though current vaccines do involve a remote material cooperation in abortion.
Given the exigencies of public health, the importance of protecting oneself and those around us, and the fact that there are no other totally acceptable alternatives, the judgment of these statements should be received as a permission, perhaps even a reluctant permission. It is saying, “You may receive the vaccine” in good conscience. It does not state that “you must” receive it. Many have formed their own conscience accordingly and received the vaccine – I have.
In Catholic moral teaching a person must never act against the judgment of their own conscience. As Catholics we have a duty, of course, to properly form our consciences based on the facts of the case, sound moral reasoning, God’s word and the teaching of the Church. Even those without faith have a duty to obey the judgment of their conscience based on the natural law inscribed in every human heart. A person must never be coerced to act against the judgment of their own conscience.
It is quite apparent that many have discerned they are not ready or able to receive a COVID vaccine. I have heard various reasons for this reluctance. Sometimes it is simply their judgment that the science itself has not yet arrived at a compelling level of certitude about the vaccine’s safety. These persons might change their discernment once full FDA approval is granted to a COVID vaccine. Others remain troubled in conscience by the abortion-tainted cell lines from which vaccines have been developed or tested. Whatever the source of reluctance, the fact remains that a person may not act against their conscience. They should always strive to resolve whatever doubts their conscience may have before acting upon it.
In December 2020, the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith wrote that “vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation.” Consequently, it should be voluntary. In certain settings such as for those working in health care, the duty to receive a vaccine to protect the vulnerable cannot be taken lightly. Prudential judgments always are part of the discernment.
The Church has taken a middle position on vaccines respecting the role of conscience. It acknowledges that people may, in good conscience, receive the vaccine while others might judge, based on its connection with abortion derived cell lines, that they cannot.
Based on Catholic moral principles, a person might judge that they “may,” in good conscience, receive the vaccine. Catholic moral principles do not make the leap and say that a person “must” receive the vaccine, especially when it is against the judgment of his or her own conscience. Vaccine mandates in workplaces ought to include a conscience exemption to the extent that this is possible. Consciences cannot be coerced without a grave violation of human dignity.