Opinion: It’s time to get beyond vaccines

I am very concerned that Catholics have now surrendered the ability to guide ethical decisions at the national or global level, not just for the single vaccine issue, but beyond it to any ethical stand.

March 3, 2021 Stacy A. TrasancosPrint

The COVID-19 Pfizer-BioNTec vaccine is seen in this illustration photo amid the pandemic. (CNS photo/Kamil Krzaczynski, Reuters)

So far, all the COVID-19 vaccines depend on the use of fetal cell lines that originated with abortion. Lots of discussion about the morality of vaccines followed Moderna’s announcement last November that its phase III human trials were successful. It is a good time to slow down, climb up high, and survey our moment in history so we can better see the way forward.

Not again!

At first mention of a COVID-19 vaccine, I thought, “Oh no, not again!” Previously, the issue was mostly relegated to childhood vaccinations. Vaccines that use aborted fetal cell lines elicit strong reactions from pro-life parents because governing authorities at varying levels require them. To vaccinate or not? For fifteen years I have read and re-read Church guidance. We choose to vaccinate our children. We also dutifully voiced objections to doctors and wrote letters to companies and lawmakers. We were heartbroken knowing we were benefiting from abortion. Like anyone concerned about this issue, we just wanted to do the right thing.

The 2005 guidance from the Pontifical Academy for Life (PAL), “Moral Reflections on Vaccines Prepared from Cells Derived from Aborted Human Foetuses,” calls this ethical dilemma a “moral coercion of conscience.” Moral theologians termed our use of these vaccines “licit, passive, remote, material cooperation in evil,” but the terminology is unhelpful. The very remoteness that might ease our conscience also makes us powerless to demand ethical alternatives. Our protests fell flat on pediatricians’ floors.

With COVID-19, we are all backed into the same corner. The mRNA vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer were tested in HEK-293 cells, a line that originated with a child aborted in the 1970s. The AstraZeneca vaccine is an adenovirus-vector-based vaccine, which encodes the spike protein. The company uses the HEK-293 cell line to both test and grow the genetically engineered vaccine. The new Johnson & Johnson vaccine is an adenoviral vector grown in the PER.C6 cell line that originated from a healthy 18-week-old aborted child. (See the Children of God for Life website for specifics.)

A hard truth

An alarming number of people, 2.5+ million, have died from COVID-19 worldwide. Economies are crippled, liberties eroded. Mandates will probably be enforced. The stress parents felt for decades is now palpable globally, and a hard truth is emerging.

The 2005 PAL guidance told us to demand ethical alternatives, but that has proven ineffective. To accept the vaccines without accepting them? To wag a finger while getting a jab? To benefit from abortion while opposing it? It is a contradiction, like sporting a seal skin jacket while opposing the killing of baby seals.

The Church is clear that receiving the injection is a matter of informed conscience, and that will not change. But there is a bigger question for Catholics to face, one that goes beyond vaccines. How do we effectively oppose abortion if we are telling the world it is moral to benefit from abortion? It is useful to review our message.

Confirmatory testing

Controversy began abruptly last November when vaccine availability was imminent. The Charlotte Lozier Institute had reported the Moderna vaccine as “ethically uncontroversial,” claiming that researchers did not use fetal cell lines. The National Catholic Bioethics Center and Catholic News Agency, among others, repeated this claim. (See the timeline here).

But there was controversy. Months earlier, both companies had already disclosed the in vitrotesting of mRNA candidates in HEK-293 fetal cells, a critical step in development. The Charlotte Lozier Institute later added the term “confirmatory testing” to describe the in vitro tests, but they continued to call the vaccine uncontroversial. Moral theologians and Church authorities, including those at the Vatican, repeated this phrase and portrayed the testing as a one-time, ethically insignificant, event (examples here and here).

There was no discussion about whether the same in vitro test would be used in ongoing quality control during manufacturing. This information would likely be found in the FDA-approved manufacturing process, but Operation Warp Speed does not require FDA approval.

Most recently, Moderna announced a plan for pre-clinical trials on new mRNA vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 variants at its manufacturing facility in Norwood, MA, a $130M investment employing 230+ employees. The new mRNA vaccines can quickly be adapted for an evolving virus, which is good. The in vitro test, however, is the first step in the pre-clinical trials for vaccine variants before animal and then human testing. If they use the same in vitrotesting described in their scientific reports, then this testing is also critical to ongoing development.

From the start, the message was confusing as Catholics were scrambling to figure out what to do. Beyond Catholic circles, I am concerned that the message collectively sent to lawmakers and pharmaceutical companies is that we are not serious about opposing unethical practices.

Licit cooperation in evil

The guidance from the PAL back in 2005 was followed in 2008 with more formal instructions from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). “Instruction Dignitas personae on Certain Bioethical Questions” clarified that the exploitation of aborted human bodies is morally illicit, but the use of the vaccine is morally licit in certain situations. “Licit, passive, remote, mediate cooperation in evil” is only permitted if: 1) the need to protect individuals and populations is grave, 2) there is no alternative, 3) one continues to reject the evil of abortion and the use of aborted children in research.

In December of last year, Dr. Janet Smith insightfully argued that the word “cooperation” is an imprecise misapplication. “How can I,” she says, “contribute to something that has already happened?” She recommended the word “appropriation” (benefiting from ill-gotten gains) instead.

Dr. Smith also noted that Bishops Athanasius Schneider and Joseph Strickland et alii see the remoteness of the cooperation as irrelevant. They argued that “the crime of abortion is so monstrous that any kind of concatenation with this crime, even a very remote one, is immoral and cannot be accepted under any circumstances by a Catholic once he has become fully aware of it.”

Although this statement is more extreme than the guidance in the PAL and CDF documents, it essentially repeats the instructions to “reject” the vaccines – if rejection is taken in a general sense. Catholics could unite and voice an outcry in rejection of the vaccines, even as individuals receive it under moral duress. This interpretation, if accurate, does not resolve the contradiction problem completely, but at least it moves toward a stronger response.

Scandal

Dignities personae mentions scandal alongside cooperation in evil, stating that the “risk of scandal be avoided” (35). The document refers here to the choices of researchers.

When the illicit action is endorsed by the laws which regulate healthcare and scientific research, it is necessary to distance oneself from the evil aspects of that system in order not to give the impression of a certain toleration or tacit acceptance of actions which are gravely unjust. Any appearance of acceptance would in fact contribute to the growing indifference to, if not the approval of, such actions in certain medical and political circles.

The problem with remote cooperation in evil, as Dr. Smith points out, is that it only considers the past. When we are making decisions about using vaccines in the present, the focus is on how they were developed and produced in the past. Scandal deals with how our choices influence the future, but it has hardly been part of the conversation.

On December 17, the CDF issued a “Note on the morality of using some anti-Covid-19 vaccines,” reaffirming the language in the 2008 Instruction Dignitas personae and the earlier PAL guidance. The note states that “it is morally acceptable to receive COVID-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses in their research and production process,” but only if ethically irreproachable vaccines are not available and one opposes the practice of abortion. The short note did not mention scandal, but it is worth considering whether our words and choices give “tacit acceptance” to the evil of abortion.

No moral qualms

In January of 2021, Dr. Melissa Moschella at Catholic University of America wrote an opinion published by the Witherspoon Institute’s Public Discourse. She holds that the COVID-19 vaccines are not “morally compromised” at all and assertsthat “pro-lifers should not have any moral qualms about taking any of the available vaccines,” contrary to the guidance from the PAL and CDF.

Fr. Matthew Schneider, also at Public Discourseand on his blog at Patheos, argues that if we are going to reject any drug tested with HEK-293, or any other fetal cell line, then we should reject almost every aspect of modern medicine, including a long list of over-the-counter drugs. He says that unless we reject all of it and “say goodbye to modern medicine,” the argument that we shouldreject them fails.

These arguments are controversial; for over fifteen years, the Vatican has asked Catholics to advocate against the use of fetal cell lines in vaccines. Dr. Moschella and Fr. Schneider are right, however, to point out that the focus on vaccines took our attention off the use of fetal cell lines in other medications. The use of fetal cell lines has become ubiquitous. If we can’t beat them, however, the solution is not to join them.

Surrender

Try to imagine the decision-makers (executives, scientists, lawmakers, investors) sitting down with Catholic leaders after all that has happened since November 2020. Catholics ask them to stop using aborted children in research. Catholics demand ethical alternatives for vaccines. But the other side already knows we find it morally permissible to benefit from abortion. Why should they take our moralizing seriously? They will likely assume we do it just to make ourselves feel better.

I am very concerned that Catholics have now surrendered the ability to guide ethical decisions at the national or global level, not just for the single vaccine issue, but beyond it to any ethical stand.

Aborted children in research

Vaccine and fetal cell lines are part of a larger problem. Late in 2020, scientific reports of fetal tissue research populated scientific literature, but with hardly a mention in Catholic ethics.

For example, the University of Pittsburg reported how they grafted the scalps of aborted children onto rodents to study staph infections. Hundreds of children aborted in the second trimester were dissected to study the accumulation of flame retardants in utero (for wanted children). And an enormous effort is underway to build a fetal cell atlas. This will map molecular-level genetic changes throughout gestation, requiring a steady supply of fetuses. (Summaries here and here.)

The wave is coming. These research programs are intended to bring significant cures. The fetal cell atlas alone is predicted to end most pediatric deaths. Fast forward this current vaccine debate ten years into the future. The issue will not be fetal cell lines in vaccines. It could be the use of life-saving cures from fetal tissue research. What do we do? Perpetually point to the past and call it remote?

Cooperating in future evil?

Because if we shrug and say we are willing to accept benefit from abortion now, we are not avoiding the risk of scandal. We may be cooperating in future evil by influencing sin in researchers’ decisions.

I do not want my children to someday sit in doctors’ offices with their babies knowing that every medical benefit offered to them, not just vaccines, came from the exploitation of the remains of unwanted children killed by abortion and used like lab rats – and then wonder why Catholics did not unite and absolutely protest this entire practice when they could.

For these reasons, I suggest that consideration of the risk of scandal be re-inserted in our moral calculus, and that we think hard about the influence our words and choices have on our leadership roles in the fight for human dignity. I think it is time to get beyond vaccines.

https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2021/03/03/opinion-its-time-to-get-beyond-vaccines/

Related at CWR:
• “Cooperation, appropriation, and vaccines relying on fetal cell line research” (Jan 24, 2021) by Stephan Kampowski
• “Opinion: Is taking the COVID-19 vaccine a moral duty?” (Feb 19, 2021) by Fr. D. Vincent Twomey, SVD

 

The President and the Bishops: What’s Next?

BY WILLIAM KILPATRICK | JAN 24, 2021

Catholics have never been more confused than now about what they are supposed to believe.  The causes of the confusion are not difficult to find:  widespread immorality among priests and bishops and even more widespread coverup of same; a pope who affirms traditional teaching one moment, and tears it down the next; Church leaders who seem more concerned about climate change than Christian persecution; and the introduction of pagan elements into Catholic liturgy.

To add to the confusion, a highly contagious virus swept across the world in 2020.  Although the virus had a low fatality rate, reporters and politicians alike treated it as though it were the second coming of the Black Death.  Schools and shops were shut down, and so were churches.  Catholics got used to “attending” Sunday Mass in front of computer screens.  The fact that the vast majority of bishops readily complied with the shutdown gave the impression to many that worship of God was not, after all, a very important activity.

For American Catholics, the confusion has now been compounded by the election of a Catholic president who rejects essential Catholic teaching, yet is warmly welcomed by the pope along with many American bishops.

Of course, several past American presidents have pursued policies that contradict Catholic teaching and they, nevertheless, received good wishes from the Catholic hierarchy.  The difference is that they were not Catholics, and there was no danger that their policy positions would be mistaken for Catholic positions.

But that’s not the case with President Biden.  Not only is he a Catholic, but he also makes a show of his Catholicism.  He attends Mass weekly, wears rosary beads around his wrist, blesses himself in public, refers to scripture and Catholic hymns during political speeches, and speaks often of how his Catholic faith has helped him through difficult times. To top it off, he has installed a photo of Pope Francis in the Oval Office.

 In many respects, Joe Biden appears to be a traditional pious Catholic. Yet Biden is strongly pro-abortion and favors policies that would spread abortion throughout the developing world.  In addition, he seems to be on board with the whole LGBT agenda.  He officiated at a wedding of two gay men, wants to reverse the transgender military ban, favors the Equality Act which allows men to compete in women’s sports, and believes that 10-year-olds should be able to choose whatever gender they please.  And, in what seems a deliberate slap at the Catholic concept of gender, he has appointed Dr. Rachel Levine (nee Richard Levine) as Assistant Secretary of Health despite his/her minimal qualifications for the job.

Attempts to present Biden’s brand of Catholicism as the real thing is bound to have a confusing effect on both Catholics and non-Catholics. Stephen P. White, Director of The Catholic Project, observed that “Biden’s words and actions will shape how the Catholic faith is perceived and understood.”  Some bishops understand this, and they realize that simply extending good wishes to the new president is not a sufficient response to the new situation—namely a President who proudly proclaims his Catholic identity while trampling on central Catholic beliefs about marriage and sexuality.

It was refreshing, then, that a statement issued by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) tempered the congratulations with sharp criticism.  Archbishop Jose Gomez, the president of the USCCB, wrote:

I must point out that our new President has pledged to pursue certain policies that would advance moral evils and threaten human life and dignity, most seriously in the areas of abortion, contraception, marriage, and gender.  Of deep concern is the liberty of the Church and the freedom of believers to live according to their consciences.

At a time of great moral confusion, this is exactly the kind of clarity that Catholics need to see and hear.  But this is not only a time of confusion.  It’s  also a time of great danger—a time when Catholics and other Christians stand in danger of being stripped of their right to free speech and freedom of religion.  Hence, Archbishop Gomez adds: “Of deep concern is the liberty of the Church and the freedom of believers to live according to their consciences.”

As some of the bishops are beginning to realize rather late in the day, the party that is coming to power in Washington has a totalitarian streak a mile wide.  How much longer will priests and bishops be able to tell their congregations that abortion and same-sex “marriage” are contrary to God’s laws without being fined—or worse?

In his statement, Archbishop Gomez, says “Rather than impose further expansion of abortion and contraception, as he has promised, I am hopeful that the new President and his administration will work with the Church and others of good will.  My hope is that we can begin a dialogue…”

But what if the dialogue never gets off the ground?  What then?  If Biden goes ahead with his pro-abortion policies, and the bishops do nothing, except to ask for more dialogue, it will only serve to confuse Catholics even more.  Unfortunately, many will conclude that abortion can’t really be that serious.  If it was, the bishops would surely have taken stronger action.

And so, they must.  Moreover, the action they should take is no mystery.  The bishops already understand full well that after dialogue fails, the next option is denial of Communion, and after that, excommunication.  These are options, not requirements.  And in the case of ordinary Catholics, these two remedies are rarely used.  However, Joe Biden is no ordinary Catholic.  He is, as Stephen White puts it, “the most powerful and influential Catholic layman in the world.”  Moreover, Biden presents himself as one who is in full communion with the Catholic Church.  But someone who persists in promoting such a grave sin as abortion has already broken communion with the Church.  And denial of Communion is just an acknowledgment of that fact.

Because of his position and influence, the bishops have a duty to make clear that Biden’s brand of “progressive” Catholicism is in opposition to Catholic teaching. But there is a difficulty involved in refusing Communion to Biden.  The difficulty lies in getting all the bishops to agree to this approach.  We already know that Cardinal Wilton Gregory, the Archbishop of Washington, D.C., will not deny Communion to Biden, and undoubtedly there are many other progressive bishops who will follow suit.  Since Biden will, for the most part, be attending Mass in Washington, D.C., he will continue to receive Communion.

Of course, Biden will have to travel from time-to-time, and individual priests and bishops in different states may refuse him Communion.  But this will only serve to strengthen the impression that Catholicism is a pick-and-choose religion.  Many will conclude that, if the bishops are divided on the issue, it can’t be that important after all.  Many will further conclude that, as the pro-choice forces would have us believe, it’s up to each individual to decide whether abortion is right or wrong.

Moreover, don’t expect that refusal of Communion by a single cleric will be a big news event which will put Biden in an awkward position, and force progressive Catholics to search their souls.  Father Robert Morey of St. Anthony Church in Florence, South Carolina did refuse Communion to Biden in November, 2019 and the news was largely ignored by the mainstream media.  It seems that a scattershot approach to challenging Biden’s anti-Catholic version of Catholicism will simply not work.  If the American bishops wish to make a sufficient impact, a unified plan of action will be required.

There is another, more serious option to consider:  excommunication.  While denial of Communion is similar in some ways, it is not the same as a formal excommunication.  There is a strong possibility that a denial policy won’t have the intended effect because many bishops and priests will simply ignore it, with the result that more Catholics will be left wondering why they too can’t ignore Church rules they disagree with.

Given the current situation, it seems that the strongest possible penalty is required.  Biden advertises his Catholicism at every opportunity, and his acolytes in the media are now portraying him as if he were a new Saint Francis.  If the bishops do nothing, Biden and his backers will get to define what it means to be a good Catholic.  It is even possible to imagine the eventual creation of a state-run church along the lines of the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association—a church where elements of Catholicism and party doctrine are skillfully blended.  Don’t dismiss the possibility.  If the past year has taught us anything, it’s that strange and unexpected developments have become the order of the day.

Undoubtedly, many in the media and in the Church itself will dismiss excommunication as a relic of medieval times.  But there is a relatively recent precedent for excommunicating Catholic politicians, and it’s one which liberals would find it difficult to criticize.  On April 16, 1962, Joseph Francis Rummel, the Archbishop of New Orleans, publicly excommunicated three local political figures for their flagrant opposition to the desegregation of New Orleans Catholic Schools.

One wonders what Cardinal-Archbishop Wilton Gregory thinks of Rummel’s action, and why he thinks the current case of a Catholic politician who flagrantly promotes abortion should be treated any differently.

Not coincidentally, the mention of Archbishop Gregory’s name brings up one of the chief difficulties with pursuing the path of excommunication.  Normally, the jurisdiction to pronounce an excommunication belongs to the local bishop.  In Biden’s case that would be Wilton Gregory, and, barring a miracle, Gregory would refuse to excommunicate.

However—at least to a layman’s eyes—the issue of jurisdiction is a very fuzzy one.  In the case of the President of the United States, it would seem that jurisdiction should not belong to the local bishop (Gregory) because the President is not just the President of the District of Columbia, but of the whole nation.  His decisions affect the lives of millions of Catholics outside D.C.  Arguably, the bishop who should have jurisdiction should be an American bishop in a position comparable to the one held by the President.  And that would be Archbishop Jose Gomez, the President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.  Unlike Cardinal Gregory, he was elected to his position by a vote of his fellow bishops. Moreover, unlike Gregory, he understands that this is not a time for business as usual. Gomez has already indicated that certain of Biden’s policies “advance moral evils.” Consequently, the claim that Biden is a Catholic in good standing cannot be left unchallenged.

More than many in the hierarchy, Archbishop Gomez seems to realize that the election of Biden has brought the Church to a major turning point.  Let’s hope and pray that he has the courage to move it in the right direction.

William Kilpatrick is the author of What Catholics Need to Know about Islam and other books about culture and religion. His work is supported in part by the Shillman Foundation.

Pictured above:  President-elect Joe Biden and Dr. Jill Biden attend services at the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle

Photo credit:  FOX 5 DC