It is time to talk clearly about the morality of vaccines and vaccine mandates.
Vaccines, like all medical technologies, are welcomed by the Church as a positive aid to the preservation of life and the decrease of human suffering. The only moral reservations the Church has ever expressed about vaccines regard the fact that some vaccines are produced using cells derived from fetuses killed by voluntary abortions. Specific to COVID-19, the J&J vaccine is produced with a cell line (PER.C6) derived from a fetus aborted in 1985, and the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were both tested using a cell line (HEK293) derived from a fetus who may have been aborted in 1972.[1] Because in Catholic moral theology the ends can never justify the means, we can never say that it is okay that pharmaceutical companies continue to use these cell lines. However, the Church has said that, because reception of these vaccines is so distant from the actual act of abortion itself, reception does not constitute endorsement or participation in the act of abortion and so can be undertaken without sin.[2] We participate more in abortion by seeing a Marvel movie than by receiving a vaccine.[3]
The Common Good is the primary lens through which a Catholic participates in society. Unlike American political discourse, which begins with the question of my rights, Catholic political discourse begins with the question of our obligations to each other. Because vaccinations only eradicate a virus if a large enough portion of the population receives them, Pope Francis and other bishops have begun speaking of the reception of the COVID-19 vaccine as a moral obligation[4], necessary to protect society in general and the most vulnerable specifically. Regardless of whether we do so by reception of the vaccine or through other means, we all must consider the common good when asking what measures we will take in response to COVID-19.
Informed Consent, on the other hand, is a foundational concept in all bioethics, Catholic and secular[5]. No one who is able to consent ought to be forced to undergo medical treatment against their will, regardless of their reasons.
Vaccine Mandates, then, are a difficult question because (1) the common good requires wide vaccination within vulnerable populations and (2) individuals should not be forced to undergo treatment against their will. There must always be a balance. For a government to require vaccines amongst health care workers, for example, is not per se immoral, because of the vulnerable nature of those receiving health care. However, if reasonable accommodation can be made for those who object to vaccination by, for example, having them submit to daily COVID checks, then that accommodation ought to be made.
Regarding Gov. Inslee’s mandates specifically, I have two reservations. First, he allows for health and religious exemptions (as these are required by federal law), but he does not recognize alternate means of protecting the common good by those who object to vaccination for reasons not specific to religion or health. For example, the Governor is requiring vaccination even by those who are able to work at home, despite the fact that their working at home is a reasonable way to look after the common good apart from vaccination. Second, the governor has not made a clear distinction between vulnerable and more robust populations. The mandate for health care workers and school employees, for example, could be justified, given the fact that children cannot yet be vaccinated and health care workers work with the vulnerable. State agencies, however, do not serve the same type of vulnerable populations and so the same level of governmental coercion is not necessary.
The conscience is an essential concept in Catholic moral theology. It is the aspect of ourselves that tells us what is morally right and morally wrong. The conscience, however, must be formed, so that it judges moral situations accurately. We form our consciences based on our influences, especially our parents, communities, and, hopefully, churches. Then, once it is formed, the Church says that we must obey our consciences, because the conscience tells us what it moral and immoral, and we can never do anything that we honestly think is wrong. This is why we have such a grave obligation to form our consciences well, because a malformed conscience can tell us to do objectively sinful things, all while being convinced that what we are doing is morally correct. One of my greatest concerns for Catholics today is that their consciences are being formed more by their political parties and news organizations than by their reading of the Bible, the Catechism, and the saints.
Conscientious objection, then, is an important concept in Catholic moral theology, because even a malformed conscience must be obeyed. However, the Church has never taught that conscientious objection should be without consequence. The martyrs, the original conscientious objectors who objected to burning incense to the Roman emperors, all died for their faith. Various theologians throughout the centuries, including those who were later vindicated in their teachings, were forced by the Church to spend decades, if not the rest of their lives, not writing or teaching publicly. We have a right, and sometimes an obligation, to make objections of conscience, but those who do so for holy reasons must always be ready to accept the consequences of that objection. If they are right in their objection, they suffer with the unjustly persecuted Christ.
Our school, for example, requires MMR vaccines for all of our students, because there is no other reasonable way to prevent a Measles outbreak at the school. While recognizing the conscientious objections of some families who will not receive this vaccine, we also cannot enroll their students because of our obligation to protect the rest of our students. We recognize their right of conscientious objection while simultaneously having to enforce the consequences of that objection.
Religious exemptions, which are allowed by the Governor’s mandates, now become sticky for Catholics. On the one hand, the highest authorities in the Church have made clear that reception of the COVID-19 vaccine does not violate our faith. On the other hand, we might object on religious grounds to a particular mandate program, particularly if it coerces more than is necessary for the common good and does not recognize alternate ways of protecting the vulnerable.[6] But is objection to a program reason enough to object to the vaccine? Sticky.
My personal take on all of this is threefold. First, it is tragic that we have reached this point. Those who would judge others for accepting what some would consider scientific misinformation about vaccines should ask themselves whether, in other areas, their own consciences are any better informed by the Church, as opposed to their preferred news outlet or political party. Second, we love each other best by seeking the good in each other first. I myself do not agree with most of the arguments I have heard against vaccination, but I need to do a better job of reminding myself that, foundationally, my interlocutor is at least trying to do what is right and is willing to be persecuted by society to follow their conscience. Only after that acknowledgement should we discuss whether our consciences are properly formed. Finally, we would do well as a society and as a Church to always speak first about the Common Good, rather than our individual rights. American political thinking has corrupted our ability to think communally with love. Those who support vaccination would be more convincing if they kept their focus on loving the vulnerable, and those who oppose vaccination would be more accepted and understood if they made clear the alternate ways in which they will work for the protection of society during this world-wide crisis.
[1] Lozier Institute chart of cell lines used; PER.C6 explanation; HEK293 explanation
[2] Pontifical Academy for Life Statement; CDF Statement
[3] Disney is a direct donor to Planned Parenthood
[4] This is not yet a binding teaching; more of a contribution to a theological debate.
[5] UW Medicine’s discussion of informed consent
[6] For those who are curious, the Archbishop has asked clergy not to sign religious exemption forms, as clergy endorsement is not required for religious exemptions in Washington State.
Fr. Moore 