Whether there is a moral obligation to be vaccinated

(Image: Daniel Schludi/Unsplash.com)

Objection 1. It seems there is a moral obligation, for one is obligated to care for one’s own body and to care likewise for the body of the neighbor, who by divine command is to be loved as oneself. Now, vaccination may render one’s own body less likely to succumb to a viral infection and less likely to pass on such an infection to the potential harm of the neighbor. Therefore one ought to be vaccinated. As Vitoria says (On the Law of War, Q. 2, art. 2), “any person who has the power to prevent his neighbor’s danger or loss is obliged to do so.”

Objection 2. The civil authorities are ordained by God for the well being of human society, and the civil authorities think vaccination will serve the common good. As Augustine says (Civ. 19.16), the city of God “has no scruples in conforming to the laws of the earthly city which regulate things designed for the support of mortal life.” Moreover, in times of war, says Vitoria, citizens may presume that the authorities are acting in good faith and that they “may lawfully go to war trusting the judgment of their superiors” (op. cit.). But we are at war with a coronavirus and should presume that calls for vaccination are made in good faith. Therefore it behoves us to be vaccinated out of respect for civil authority and for God who ordains that authority to our good.

Objection 3. Further, Church authorities are urging vaccination, even where State authorities are not requiring vaccination. The Roman pontiff is reported as saying, “I believe that, ethically, everyone has to get the vaccine.” Many other prelates say likewise. Now, since the Magisterium must be respected in matters of faith and morals, and this is a matter of morals connected to love of neighbor, the Christian ought to be vaccinated.

Objection 4. This obligation extends even to those who are minimally at risk. For, as the European Court of Human Rights has opined re: the routine vaccination of children (Vavřička and Others v. the Czech Republic, April 2021), “it cannot be regarded as disproportionate for a State to require those for whom vaccination represents a remote risk to health to accept this universally practised protective measure, as a matter of legal duty and in the name of social solidarity, for the sake of the small number” of the vulnerable who cannot themselves benefit from vaccination: which is a morally as well as a legally sound principle.

Objection 5. The obligation is not overridden, as some contend, by a countervailing concern with the derivation or testing of the vaccines. As some have said (Statement from Pro-Life Catholic Scholars on the Moral Acceptability of Receiving COVID-19 Vaccines, 5 Mar. 2021), “one may choose any of these vaccines to protect oneself or one’s community from transmission of the virus without (1) endorsing the abortion that preceded the development of the cell line (performed for reasons separate and independent such development), (2) incentivizing future abortions, or (3) disrespecting the memory or mortal remains of the baby whose cadaveric tissue was used and modified to create the cell line.” Consequently, the previous considerations retain their force.

Objection 6. Finally, even those who do not regard vaccination as morally obligatory generally regard it nonetheless as prudent, because it contributes to a general sense of security that will allow individuals and society to escape a highly damaging cycle of restrictions imposed under public emergency statutes; and as compassionate, for it responds to the need of the vulnerable. But this is a matter of justice as well as prudence and compassion, because, as already said, anyone “who has the power to prevent his neighbor’s danger or loss is obliged to do so.” Hence it pertains to moral duty.

On the contrary, the scripture says (Sir. 32:19–22):

Do nothing without deliberation;
and when you have acted, do not regret it.
Do not go on a path full of hazards,
and do not stumble over stony ground.
Do not be overconfident on a smooth way,
and give good heed to your paths.

And St. Augustine says (Civ. 19.16), that while “it is fitting to preserve cooperation between the two cities in mortal affairs” as far as possible, yet “it is not kindness to cooperate in the loss of a greater good, nor blameless to acquiesce and to permit a slide into greater evil.”

I answer that care of the body, whether one’s own or the neighbor’s, which Augustine calls medicine (Mor. Ecc. 52), is always a matter of prudential judgment; and that specific actions directed to the good of the body, even basic actions such as eating, are in principle only, and not in particular application, matters of moral obligation. As the apostle says, “all things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable” (1 Cor. 6:12). Just as one may choose to eat or to fast, to give or withhold, without necessarily incurring sin, so one may choose to be vaccinated or not to be vaccinated without necessarily incurring sin. And just as one may do harm by way of untimely or disproportionate appeals to the good of eating or sleeping, and so forth, one may do harm by way of the untimely or disproportionate use of medications. Therefore such decisions require deliberation and good counsel and sound judgment, rather than appeals to duty.

Further, by reason of the rational soul’s possession of its own body (for as Augustine says in the same place, a man “is a rational soul with a body in its service”), and by reason of the principle of subsidiarity, this judgment always lies with families and individuals and never with civil or ecclesiastical authorities, which may recommend and reward such a course of action, but may not, without violation of natural rights, enforce it through penal actions.

Moreover, medicine must always, as an act of charity, be directed to discipline – the good of the body to the good of the soul (Mor. Ecc. 56). But the vaccinations in question, in the majority of the population, are directed to the good neither of the body nor of the soul. They are not ordinarily directed to the good of the body, whether one’s own or another’s, because very few are in serious danger from the virus and thus in need of a vaccine; and because these Emergency Use Authorization vaccines have not been tested sufficiently to demonstrate that they will not harm the body or interfere with natural immune processes, individually or collectively. They are not directed to the good of the soul because they teach people to accommodate rather than repudiate unjustified fear, and so to slide into greater evil; to become ever more reliant on technocratic intervention in their own lives and in the ordering of their societies; and, in the face of widespread suspension of natural and constitutional rights, enforced by such intervention, to submit to advancing tyranny.

Consequently, there not only can be no moral obligation to be vaccinated; where cooperation in such evils appears as a serious threat, there is rather, for some, a moral obligation to refuse vaccination.

Reply to Objection 1. The first objection fails in multiple ways. The obligations stated are not absolute but relative, and remain subject to prudence. Moreover, the expected benefits are not certain but only possible, and not necessarily attainable only in this fashion. Moreover, it is unethical to vaccinate those who are not at risk, especially children, for the sake of others (mainly the very elderly) who are at risk, especially when using an experimental vaccine with uncertain long-term effects.

Reply to Objection 2. Augustine also says in the same place (Civ. 19.16) that “since the earthly city produced its own savants who … reached the conclusion that there are many gods” to be placated, one for the body and another for the mind, etc., each “with its own sphere of interest and function” (thus more recently Rousseau, e.g., in Du Contrat Social), whereas “the heavenly city knew that there was only one God to serve, and decreed, in faithful devotion, that he should be the sole object of religious service…, on this count dissension was inevitable.” And thus it is here. As St. Paul says, “The body is for the Lord and the Lord is for the body” (1 Cor. 6:13). But civil authorities in many jurisdictions have cultivated an irrational fear of a coronavirus in place of rational fear of the living God, and have refused to concede that the body is for the Lord, denying for long periods the right to meet to receive and honour the Lord. This Augustine would rebuke, for the city of God can be indifferent to laws for temporal peace if and only if “they do not impede the religion which teaches the worship of the one supreme and true God” (Civ. 19.19).

Moreover, these same authorities have acted unjustly towards the poor, by depriving them of their livelihoods, and towards those in need of support for body or soul, by depriving them of access to one another and of recourse to communities of support, even familial communities. Further, they have ceded their own democratic authority to unelected officials whom they have appointed over matters beyond the latter’s competence. They have trusted in, and allied themselves with, fully indemnified pharmaceutical companies who stand to profit from the policies of these unelected officials. They have altered the definition of a pandemic to exclude consideration of the severity of its effect, focusing only on the ease of its transmission, such that pandemics are now to be frequent and unnaturally prolonged, and the people more dependent than ever on governments wielding emergency powers and pharmaceutical companies offering experimental vaccines. They have repeatedly overridden constitutional rights and freedoms in the name of a “public emergency” that never before would have qualified as such. They have failed to provide the people with sound information and with meaningful choices in response to that information. Therefore they have lost the right to be trusted by the people and to be respected in their wielding of extraordinary powers.

As Vitoria says, in the place mentioned, there may be arguments and proofs of injustice “so powerful that even citizens and subjects of the lower class may not use ignorance as an excuse” for compliance with public authorities. Similarly, Leo XIII says (Lib. praest.10): “If then, by anyone in authority, something be sanctioned out of conformity with the principles of right reason, and consequently hurtful to the commonwealth, such an enactment can have no binding force of law, as being no rule of justice, but certain to lead men away from that good which is the very end of civil society.” This applies, a fortiori, to directives limiting or perverting the worship of the one true God.

Reply to Objection 3. The same Roman pontiff, Pope Francis, has called vaccination “an ethical option” and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has made clear that it is only an option and not an obligation. As stated above, vaccination is always a matter of prudential judgment. Nothing said by magisterial authorities on the subject of vaccination against the coronavirus is said in such a way as to bind the consciences of the faithful, but is proffered, and can be proffered, only by way of fatherly advice. Moreover, our ecclesial fathers are not united on the subject. Worse, many of them have compromised their own fatherly standing by doing nothing to defend the right and responsibility of the Church to offer public worship of the Lord God and to gather in his name to hear his Word, receive the sacraments, and encourage one another, which was and is their first duty. They have ignored, and advised their flocks to ignore, the apostle’s injunction (Heb. 10:25; 12:12ff.) to “forsake not the assembling of ourselves together,” preferring rather to counsel individual safety and “peace with all men” over pursuit of that holiness “without which no one will see the Lord.”

Further, they have allowed professions of respect for the second great commandment to override the obligations of the first great commandment, misconstruing “neighbor love” as cooperation in irrational fears rather than proclaiming the dominical “Fear not!” in the midst of this global storm. Taking their eyes off Jesus, they have been buffeted by the winds and begun to sink into the waves. They have now seized on the vaccines as a way to recommence their cancelled assemblies, without any forethought to the new situation of the Church, or indeed of the neighbor, under the frequent and prolonged “pandemic” regimes to which they have lent their own blessing. Such have acted as cowardly and thoughtless fathers, whose persons must be respected for the sake of their office but whose advice is no more to be trusted than that of the civil authorities to whom they have wrongly ceded their own proper ecclesial authority. For they have rendered to Caesar what is God’s.

Reply to Objection 4. The principle is not morally sound or even coherent. It is true, as Kierkegaard says, that in Christianity each one is worth more than a thousand rather than each, as Bentham would have it, counting for one and only for one. But whereas the few may voluntarily expose themselves to great risks for the sake of the many, and the many may voluntarily undergo risks for the sake of the few, the many cannot be obliged or compelled to expose themselves unnecessarily to risks, however remote, in order to protect the few. That logic contradicts both the utilitarianism from which it arises and the Christian morality of which it is a deceptive simulacrum. It leads to injustice, both within and beyond the sphere of medicine, through an arbitrary privileging of the few that disenfranchises the many. (This same logic is operative in abortion, e.g., where the hosts of the unborn are sacrificed to the plans of the wealthy or the dissipations of the lustful.) It is disproportionate through and through, without rising to the free and generous disproportion of Christian love.

Reply to Objection 5. The scholars in question claim that they are not using proportionalist reasoning, but rather asserting that “the attenuated and remote connection to abortions performed decades ago, and the absence of any incentive for future abortions,” effectively insulate users of the vaccines from moral culpability as they enjoy the fruits of “this welcome advance of science.” The same logic, however, might be used to justify enjoying the benefits of other evil acts that advance science; nor are the criteria clear for determining when material cooperation in evil is sufficiently remote as to incur no guilt. So the debate about this must continue. In any case, these scholars do not attempt to establish a moral obligation to be vaccinated and their statement explicitly allows for the possibility of conscientious dissent, as do magisterial documents.

Reply to Objection 6. This objection has already been answered. “Justice is the virtue of giving each his own” (Civ. 19.20), and justice in the present matter means permitting each to exercise prudence and compassion according to his own judgment, for man “is in the hand of his own counsel” (Sir. 15.14), though he should indeed “do nothing without deliberation” nor be hasty either in entering on the rough road or in entrusting himself to the smooth one. Moreover, he should be compassionate, for “there is no harm in this word, ‘compassionate’, where there is no passion in the case” (Mor. Ecc. 53). At present, however, there is not only much passion in the case but much panic, which clouds the judgment of many.

Supplementum. The reason for that is this: Most are living the present life uninformed by hope in the life to come. Without that hope, which the churches ought to have been proclaiming but have not, their life “offers nothing but a pretense of happiness, which is great unhappiness.” Hence they “cannot dispose of the real goods of the mind; for the so-called wisdom that is intent on this life’s business, managing it prudently, coping with it resolutely, exercising temperate restraint, making just distributions, all without directing it to that end where God is all in all, where eternity is certain and peace entire, that is not real wisdom at all” (Civ. 19.20, trans. O’Donovan).

In the present crisis even this partial and inadequate wisdom has forsaken us, because we have beforehand forsaken that real wisdom which orders the body to the soul and the soul to God, the wisdom which knows that “only the soul that serves God can rightly command the body” or deliberate calmly about the affairs of the body. We have sold the birthright of our freedoms for a mess of pottage with barely a moment’s hesitation. And now? Now we will entrust ourselves to an experimental vaccination program and begin carrying local or global vaccination passports in a permanent war against all threats to Health & Safety, and against all liberties that threaten our new Health & Safety regimes. We will order our souls to our bodies, and neither to God, in a global association that offers “a perverted imitation of God” through its proud aspiration to command all things and to imprint them with the marks of its own control. For “even the wicked make war for the peace of those who belong to them (Civ. 19.12).

And what will the churches do? Will they also turn away those who cannot or will not demonstrate that they have been vaccinated? If they do turn them away, they will only confirm that they have transferred their allegiance to the city of man and that their religion is secretly the religion of man. But if they do not turn them away, they will find themselves right where they have all along refused to be: in open violation of civil authorities. The smooth road, on which they so hastily embarked, will suddenly become very rough indeed.


If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.


About Dr. Douglas Farrow 20 Articles
Douglas Farrow is Professor of Theology and Ethics at McGill University, and the author of several books including Theological Negotiations: Proposals in Soteriology and Anthropology (Baker Academic, 2018) and a new commentary on Thessalonians (Brazos, 2020).

100 Comments

  1. Per above: “Moreover, it is unethical to vaccinate those who are not at risk, especially children, for the sake of others (mainly the very elderly) who are at risk, especially when using an experimental vaccine with uncertain long-term effects.”

    This (rush to viable vaccine) seems to be a valid reason, all other arguments and moral issues aside, to decline this vaccine. Even being an ardent Trump supporter I know he rushed this through in large part because of the upcoming election. Animal vaccines have gone thru much more testing than this one did.

    • Well, now children are at risk, are as other young people– especially, with the variants in ascendancy. And it’s never been true that only the elderly are at risk. That is false information. Many young persons have died of this virus, or are “long-haulers”. So there goes that argument! Check your facts.

      • Dissenter,
        Young people and occasionally children can be at risk for Covid but consider the number of suicides and drug overdoses in comparison to Covid deaths. If the Covid vaccines are experimental, so are lockdowns. Both should be looked at with caution.

      • You should be the one checking facts, since your post is replete with falsehood. The evidence clearly indicates that the elderly and those with comorbid medical conditions are most vulnerable. Children are the least vulnerable and are at lowest risk. Those are the facts.

      • Reality check. In 2020, about 450 children under the age of 18 died from the flu in the U.S. Another 800ish died from pneumonia. In 2020, how many children under 18 years of age died from the Wuhan flu? less than 150. Go check the CDC numbers for yourself. But why hasn’t everyone been running around like ninnies for all my life shutting down schools, cancelling sports, social distancing, etc.? This whole thing has been a power grab from the start and all of the doom scrollers and panic porn addicts got sucked right in to the scam.

        And I have been effected more than most. My wife lost both of her parents in a nursing home to the Wuhan Flu early last year. People get old, old people get sick and old people die. Nothing new here. Get used to it. Both my wife and I got Covid keeping vigil at their bedside, because a Catholic doesn’t let their parents die alone. We had full protective gear – masks, gloves, gowns, face shields, etc. and still got it. My symptoms lasted for 10 months. Our faithful Canon, garbed only in his cassock and vestments, no face diaper, administered last rights to both of them and never got sick. Live your life, do it all in service to God and accept that you will die all too soon from whatever cause.

        Keeping all that in mind, there is no way I will let anyone force me to get the Fool’s Prick. For all I know, the Wuhan flu is a designer virus, but I won’t compound the issue by subjecting myself to more Frankenscience.

      • oh give it up….this virus is nothing more than a super flu…some are going to die from it while others will live through it..its going to infect who it wants and there is nothing anybody can do about it

      • “More than 10,000 people have died shortly after COVID-19 vaccination since December, American and European authorities have revealed. The deaths include more than 7,100 in Europe, according to the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and 3,005 reported by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC).
        As of Tuesday, EudraVigilance, the EMA’s database of suspected drug reaction reports, noted that 4,036 “fatal outcomes” after vaccination with Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot, as well as 1,922 and 1,234 deaths after administration of vaccines made by Moderna and AstraZeneca, respectively.”

  2. There is NO moral obligation to take a vaccine.

    What IS immoral is forcing someone to take a vaccine against their will.

    • Certainly there is no good reason to take the specific vaccines that were brought to market in such a rush because the exponential models were employed to create a crisis. 60% of the world population infected, >2% mortality rates to create an opening to field a new (untried, untested) genetically engineered “vaccine” that until now would never pass Phase 4 T&E with the associated financial liabilities.

    • And you are a deacon? Then ACT like one. I would venture to say this is not the first time you have been admonished. The Church MUST stop accepting the “information” being “spouted” by people with titles and start acting like members of the human race with a desire to help. Fr example…the German Church. More good practicing Catholics should be commenting about their disrespectful and sinful approach to Church Doctrine, just because they have a Church Tax bringing in LARGE amounts of money each year! Wasn’t it $8 billion in 2020, per a recent article.

  3. I am relying on the reply to Objection 5. It seems to me that if one accepts the currently available vaccinations, one is encouraging future research, development and production of medicines using fetal cells from abortions. It is just not honest to accept the vaccination while objecting to its connection to abortion. I fully realize that I cannot make the decision for anyone else (my husband has received two doses of the Pfizer vaccine), but if more Catholics and others opposed to abortion had rejected these vaccines, companies like Sorrento would be encouraged to complete the production of their vaccine that has no connection to abortion.

    • That is my reason, too, for not getting vaccinated. I thought it was a basic principle that the end does not justify the means. How come that’s suddenly ignored? We are panicking about a virus that is much less of a threat than the plague.
      I’m not saying the threat is not there, it is, and I am one of the vulnerable ones. But history shows us that even a virulent outbreak only has a limited span (of about two or three years) so I will lie low,not take public transport much, take vitamin D to boost my immune system, and get an antibody test if I can, because I had pneumonia the November before the virus became an issue …. so might be protected already.
      My main reason for holding out is that if we don’t express our conscientious objections they will never be taken into account. If there is already a suitable vaccine in development there’s absolutely no need to force an an unethical one on anybody.

  4. We read: “Now we will entrust ourselves to an experimental vaccination program and begin carrying local or global vaccination passports in a permanent war against all threats to Health & Safety, and against all liberties that threaten our new Health & Safety regimes.”

    We might consider the fairly recent Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. In 2010 its membership was reconstituted by one President Obama to no longer ask so much whether something ought to be done, or ought not to be done, but mostly only how it can be done more efficiently.

    Engaged in such pontification, in 2015 the commission concluded that national quarantine policies against the global threat of Ebola should be based on science. But then remained silent on a raft of other moral and biomedical issues dividing the nation right down the middle.

    But at least now the Church’s new moral theology of creeping consequentialism has got it all figured out, even to the fourth generation. Follow “THE science”!

  5. “as the European Court of Human Rights has opined”

    Somewhere in “Reply to Objection 4” it should have been mentioned that the European Court of Human Rights has absolutely no moral authority, if for no other reason (and there are others) than their anti-life decisions.

  6. Good piece. I have not been vaccinated nor do I plan to be vaccinated.

    Reasons – the source of the vaccine, the rather fragrant fact that since these things were brought in so swiftly we have NO IDEA of any future side-effects, #3 – I’m 77 years old and there has to be someone who can really use it – I’ll take my chances.
    I pretty much stay at home in my home on a dirt road off a dirt road and have pretty much minimal contact with people so I feel safe.

    My taking or not taking the vaccine based on the advice of a religious figure – not an issue.

  7. As I have written friends and posted elsewhere, the vaccine “choices” available here seem to me to consist of a) my getting a new leg grown from a clone of an innocent executed prisoner, or b) getting a new leg only tested on a clone of an innocent executed prisoner.

    Given that the pandemic has already by January largely played out except in the most stringently locked-down areas, I see no point in making that choice at all, as we are not talking ebola, but only what has amounted to a very bad flu.

    We lack more “choices” because near zero religious leaders insisted we not take a compromised vaccine and their followers be counted upon to actually follow, as it is apparent there is a great lack of belief in the eternal outweighing the temporal by infinite magnitude, a lack of faith by followers and their leaders.

    And then they shall conduct studies as to why declining membership numbers.

    • Why do people here believe it’s just a bad case of flu? It’s horrible, and a lot of people have died from it. And not just the elderly! Lately, young people are dying. So what happened to their natural immunity? As for rushing it thru, that is an emergency response for a pandemic– yet, all precautions are being taken. Any severe side effects from the vaccines are very rare. If a vaccine had been available during the so-called “Spanish” flu epidemic, I’m sure it would have been considered a godsend. But this is more than “just the flu”. This is a killer. I’m with the USCCB, on this one– I guess also because I had a family member die of it.

  8. Much thanks to professor Farrow for laying out the arguments and counter arguments related to the obligation to receive vaccination or the freedom to choose wisely. This is a necessary debate that has been long awaited. I hope it will be helpful to many.

  9. A fine Aquinas like exposition of prevention and the common good v faith and conscientious independence. International Law notwithstanding Vitoria, Grotius et al we know is law only insofar as nations abide. “We will order our souls to our bodies, and neither to God, in a global association that offers a perverted imitation of God through its proud aspiration to command all things and to imprint them with the marks of its own control”. That would aptly describe the least positive but real dynamic. Although genuine concern for the common good counterbalances this. We can’t consequently offer that, a perverted imitation of god as the rationale for the justification to refuse the vaccine. Common good an essential moral principle has since immemorial been abused from imperial Rome to the USSR to the current US administration. Saint Charles Borromeo complied with the Spanish governor of Milan for total shutdown nevertheless could be considered disobedient to civil command by the many actions he took to override it. Saint Aloysius Gonzaga certainly was conscious of his transmission of the plague conferring the sacraments. Conversely for the vaccine recipient the moral arguments are the use of fetal tissue and concern for adverse reaction. Furthermore, there’s no conclusive evidence that those, perhaps all those who refuse the vaccine are vectors. Presbyters during this crisis in justifiable instances have conferred the sacraments penance, anointing, the Eucharist despite their bishops’ blanket prohibition [including strict prohibition to address the gravity of abortion from the pulpit prior to the last election]. Which brings to question whether a bishop can morally deny these sacraments [or the truth] when necessary. Whether it is they who are offending God. It seems Borromeo and Gonzaga give us the better approach. There is a moral argument to be made to take the vaccine as well as a justifiable moral argument to decline. As in medicine there are areas of grey when variables decrease the polarity between black and white. And decisions are made to the best of one’s judgment regardless of uncertainty. This is apparently one of the kind. Effect whether good or bad does not determine the moral good of an act when both intent and means to the end are good.

    • As to a preventative policy with good intent, as is the case with the administration’s policy, the means to achieve that end by legal enforcement, punitive measures, oppression of Church, prolonged restrictions on family life, the economy is not only mistaken but immoral. Fitting Dr Farrow’s image of belonging to a “global association that offers us a perverted image of God”. Whether vaccination is a moral obligation in the majority of instances, it is safe to say it is not, except, perhaps with due respect to conscience in cases when the risks of infection warrants. Although even there persons who nevertheless decline mustn’t be forced.

  10. Please advise. In the above article on “Whether there is a moral obligation to be vaccinated”: What does the cited reference “Civ.” stand for? Is it one of the books in the Bible?

  11. Every bishop ought to read this, memorize it, and start preaching it, especially to civil authorities. But we know they won’t, because it is too difficult, and not “nice.” The bishops of twenty and thirty years from now– who might actually have some backbone and orthodoxy– are going to have a real mess on their hands, and right now, today’s bishops are still digging in and doubling down on everything that has failed over the last 100 years, making tomorrow’s mess even worse. Eventually we are going to have to confront the culture head on instead of tiptoeing around it.

    I’ll just underscore one point that Dr. Farrow makes. Those who are pushing this agenda on us have proven themselves to be untrustworthy and possibly even incompetent. We can’t make informed, rational decisions based on untrustworthy information. We can hardly have a duty to do anything based on unreliable sources and so-called “experts” who also cannot be trusted. In the end, no one is offering a rational justification for vaccination beyond, “Because I said so,” or “Do this or else!” Even a parent has to work hard to establish the trustworthiness of his own authority, or else children will start to ignore that parent– and even God does not coerce anyone into doing anything.

  12. I am a pharmacist married to a Physician / researcher. Never in our lives have we seen an experimental vaccine, drug or treatment – released by the FDA as “experimental” given to anybody other than those in grave danger, for whom the risk of the experimental treatment outweigh the grave danger of their illness. This vaccine should only be given to those for whom this is true – not to the general public and certainly not to children. This article excellently points out how we have been manipulated by fear. I say this as an older person. I am appalled by the thought of young people and children being pressured to get vaccinated to protect me – who while enjoying this life hopes to move on to the next with more joy when the time comes. I am appalled that young people have had to stop living their lives. They will actually gain greater immunity if they have Covid because they will produce antibodies and hopefully gain T-Cell immunity to a variety of Covid antigens, not just the spike protein and so more resistant to any variants that arise. Of course then they would not need the jab every 6 months to a year – denying big pharma the opportunity to charge billions of people for the jab.

    • Your conscience should be your guide. Just ask Dr. Tony Fauci and pray for the more than half million souls lost to the COVID virus. I thought it was described as a worldwide pandemic!

    • Jeanne, Your comments give absolutely NO confidence at all! Any you are a pharmacist married to a Physician / researcher! What would you have us do since the 500,000 people across the world have died? We have never HAD such a pandemic like this before, therefore I ask again, what would you have us do.

      • No, the worldwide death toll of Wuhan Flu is almost 3 million – the 500,000 is in the United States.

        Yes, we have had a pandemic like this before: the Spanish Flu killed roughly 50 million people (estimates range from 17 million to 100 million.

        • actually, it was the mask wearing that was the cause for all the deaths during the Spanish flu..the government knew this and did nothing..so now we are all just witnessing history repeating itself..enjoy the ride

  13. Farrow is always a must read: “ But civil authorities in many jurisdictions have cultivated an irrational fear of a coronavirus in place of rational fear of the living God, and have refused to concede that the body is for the Lord, denying for long periods the right to meet to receive and honour the Lord. This Augustine would rebuke, for the city of God can be indifferent to laws for temporal peace if and only if “they do not impede the religion which teaches the worship of the one supreme and true God” (Civ. 19.19).” Bingo times infinity.
    And the bishops, to their shame, are complicit.

  14. Since this virus has a very low mortality rate, I can see no moral obligation to do anything more than exercise prudence in regard to exposing those most vulnerable. Those most vulnerable have an obligation to exercise prudence as well as regards exposing themselves, but otherwise we need to get on with normal activities, since they benefit the community as a whole.

  15. A substantial contribution to the responsible work of informed medical consent! Thank you Douglas!

    One could take a needle with the brave awareness of possible negative results of an experimental “vaccine”, yet we are not hearing about persons who consciously agree to be such martyrs. St Maximillian Kolbe, pray for us.

  16. Interesting reading! I think this is a very clear and logical explanation that would make St. Thomas Aquinas proud. Due to the nature of my job (military first responder) I am getting the vaccine, but I agree wholeheartedly with Professor Farrow that vaccination is a CHOICE, not a MANDATE, for as long as we are in this current muddled state. What is most important is that people use their prudence to determine whether they can or should get vaccinated at this time.

  17. Adding to my comment I implied what I wish to make clear. Although I agree with the conclusion of Dr Farrow my rationale differs as explained. No state government may suppress the free expression of religion specifically Catholicism nor can it remove the right of the individual to refuse a medical treatment which is always variable in outcome and in any instance cannot supersede that right [that calls into question in principal the state prerogative to enforce medical treatment even when it seems irrational to refuse].

  18. All, or most, of this world quandary could have been avoided and the loss of life been less if world leadership were front and center. When a World Health Organization is estranged from the most powerful nations. An administration that conceals the pandemic early on then when the crisis is upon us shifts responsibility to the states causing competition for PPEs and mayhem sinfully causing the loss of hundreds of thousands of innocent souls. The mortal sin is not with the people whishing to get a belated COVID vaccine.

    • The mortal sin is not with those wishing vh to get a vaccine. But constantly lying and slandering people you disagree with in response to your TDS is deeply sinful and clearly pathological. Focus on addressing and repenting from your own sins instead of pointing fingers at others. And deferring to the States was the right call. It’s called federalism.

  19. “An administration that conceals the pandemic early on then when the crisis is upon us shifts responsibility to the states causing competition for PPEs and mayhem sinfully causing the loss of hundreds of thousands of innocent souls”

    Nonsense. You can’t blame President Trump for whta happened in all the other countries.

    Do get some therapy. Your TDS is truly pathological.

    • Neither can you shift blame from Trump for his platforming of fauci, the quack national emergency declaration, and the very warp speed experimental biological agent that has us guinea pigs in a death grip.

      • Susan, maybe you can have a chat with MorganB and settle between yourselves whether President Trump is evil for giving Dr. Fauci a platform or for ignoring him, for declaring a national emergency or for understating the emergency, for rushing the coronavirus vaccine or for causing it to be “belated.” Then get back to the rest of us.

    • I focused on America’s plight, not any other nation, some of whom should be helping us, perhaps not those like India and Brazil.

      We must face reality when the president is recorded in an interview with Bob Woodward saying he knew in early 2020 of the seriousness of the Coronavirus and did nothing. Pray for Trump for offering, in broad daylight, injections of household cleaning fluids as an “cure within seconds”, and Dr. Atlas’ MASS INFECTIONS. WOW!

      If God ever gave us a fighting chance it is now. I will admit mea culpa for not being clearer.

      • The very fact that you quote Bob Woodward, of all sources, shows how disconnected from reality your thinking is. Remember MorganB, every step away from the light is a step deeper into the darkness. Every lie that you embrace and spread is another step into delusion and falsehood. At some point, you are not going to be able to tell the difference between darkness and light or truth and error anymore. Your are already more than halfway there. As I have reminded you countless time, address your own sin, and leave judging others to God alone.

  20. “Very few are in serious danger from the virus and thus in need of a vaccine; and because these Emergency Use Authorization vaccines have not been tested sufficiently to demonstrate that they will not harm the body or interfere with natural immune processes, individually or collectively. They are not directed to the good of the soul because they teach people to accommodate rather than repudiate unjustified fear, and so to slide into greater evil.”

    Let’s look at the actual evidence by comparing COVID vaccines to the chickenpox vaccine which most kids get now.

    Pox deaths about 1 in 10,000
    COVID deaths about 1 in 100-200

    Pox vaccine grown on a fetal cell line; most US COVID vaccines only tested on 1.

    Pox vax total human trials 20k.

    This seems more needed, has fewer ethical issues, and has greater testing that a vaccine that Catholic theologians and bioethicists almost universally agreed was moral and prudent for the vast majority for over two decades. To assume this is unjustified fear rather than prudential caution, one would have to disprove all three of those.

    • Fr. Schneider:

      1. It’s impossible to compare chicken pox deaths with Covid deaths since the criteria for counting the latter are different from the former — far broader and virtually without definition. We simply do not know. This is a dire issue that is currently being challenged by world health experts: the manipulation of data.

      2. It is not true that vaccines (such as chicken pox) derived from aborted fetal tissue are universally accepted as ethical. Many ordinary citizens (such as myself, with 7 children) resisted them all along (as soon as we knew about them) and many theologians agreed that they ought to be resisted (not that one needs a theologian to think this — it’s a matter of conscience).

      Mrs. Debi Vinnage queried then-Cardinal Ratzinger on the topic. He said: “As regards the diseases against which there are no alternative vaccines which are available and ethically acceptable, it is right to abstain from using these vaccines if it can be done without causing children, and indirectly the population as a whole, to undergo significant risks to their health.”

      No one can reasonably argue that chicken pox represents a significant risk to health. In any case, it’s a matter of prudence and you are incorrect in saying that it has been universally accepted to take these vaccines.

      But even if it were, that in itself is no argument. If something was wrong in the past, no matter how universally accepted (perhaps through ignorance), it must be righted.

      If the so-called vaccines against Covid are the opportunity to right the grave wrong of the ongoing use of aborted baby cells in medical products, then it behooves Christians and others of good will to seize it.

      Let me posit a parallel to your use of this argument (“you accepted this bad thing in other situations so you must do so now”): Fr. James Martin SJ habitually argues that because church authorities have accepted the divorced and remarried in positions of influence (eg high school administrators), it’s hypocrisy and injustice to suddenly terminate employment of gay people living in “same-sex marriage.”

      He is right that it is hypocrisy. He is wrong in saying that it thus requires official acceptance of the new public, sinful behavior.

      Instead, those with humility will see the opportunity to REPENT and to resolve never to accept cooperation with sinful behavior if possible.

      The same goes for the use of aborted baby cell lines. As Bishop Schneider says, alternatives will be found if we but stand up and refuse to go along with this cooperation — *especially* considering that there is no grave risk by foregoing these so-called vaccines — Providence has made the right stand rather easy for us, this time. It may not be so easy in the future.

      • Yes, Leila we should have stood up better decades ago but I suppose better late than never.
        I resisted vaccines produced with fetal cells and am glad to hear you did also. I wish our shepherds had taken a stand back then. Perhaps we wouldn’t be in the situation we face now.
        Pharmaceutical companies have absolutely no incentive to change or offer alternatives unless enough people resist. Nuanced ethical directives mean nothing to them compared to sales.

      • Excellent response on the bioethics plane. I would add that jury is out on the c pox vaccine as some think its widespread use may leave one exposed to very painful shingles in adulthood.

      • 1. “It’s impossible to compare chicken pox deaths with Covid deaths since the criteria for counting the latter are different from the former.” At most, the difference is a slight percentage of the deaths. No reasonable person can claim over 98% of COVID deaths are not from COVID. But to argue Chickenpox is more dangerous, you’d need to prove 98% of COVID deaths were false.

        2. I said “almost universal.” I admit a small number disagreed, but this disagreement was far smaller than those now claiming no on COVID vaccines.

        Also, they are not “derived from aborted fetal tissue.” They are grown on cell lines derived from fetal tissue. When talking about remote cooperation or appropriation, the degreeof remoteness matters.

        “If it can be done without causing children, and indirectly the population as a whole, to undergo significant risks to their health.” The vast majority of moralists argue (cf. NCBC, Nicanor Austriaco, Anthony Fisher, Catholic Medical Association, etc.) that even the 1 in 10,000 death from chickenpox is “significant risks to their health” making it ethical to vaccinate. Your claim, “No one can reasonably argue that chicken pox represents a significant risk to health.” is contra factual as there are plenty of highly trained, highly reasonable experts who have said this is a significant enough health risk to the vaccine in accord with the 2005 Vatican letter. Some Catholic schools even require this vaccine and multiple solid bioethicists have said this is an acceptable option (although not requiring it is also an acceptable option).

        Some sources:
        NCBC 1999: https://www.immunize.org/talking-about-vaccines/furton.pdf
        Lincare Quarterly (journal of the Catholci Medical Association) 2019: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6027112/
        Texas Catholic Conference (undated but almost definitely pre-covid de to no mention): https://txcatholic.org/education-department/vaccines/
        Cincinnaati Respect life office in 2019: https://local12.com/health/medical-edge-reports/the-chickenpox-vaccine-how-its-made-and-what-the-catholic-church-says-about-it
        2019 interview by CNA with an NCBCehticist: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/41207/what-does-the-catholic-church-teach-about-vaccines
        “If the so-called vaccines against Covid are the opportunity to right the grave wrong of the ongoing use of aborted baby cells in medical products, then it behooves Christians and others of good will to seize it.” Please give equal objection to all medicines tested on fetal cell lines then: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/throughcatholiclenses/2021/01/if-any-drug-tested-on-hek-293-is-immoral-goodbye-modern-medicine/ And all remote cooperation in serious grave objective evil (there is almost no device you could post a comment on this website not implicated in this: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/throughcatholiclenses/2020/12/12-things-less-remote-cooperation-in-evil-than-covid-vaccines/

        Also, they are vaccines, no “so-caleld vaccines.”

        “There is no grave risk by foregoing these so-called vaccines.” I already pointed out above that 1 in 10,000 was a grave risk and covid killsabotu 1 in 100-200.

        • Father, I cannot find your quoted fatality statistic for chickenpox (1 in 10,000). The best I could do was 1 death per 100,000 cases in the US before the vaccine. No matter how many experts you quote, to me that really looks like
          a relatively innocuous illness and only increases my reluctance to trust experts. As for the Covid death rate you cite, all anyone can factually state is that about 1.8% (your 1-2 in 100) of people in the USA with some kind of reported Covid infection may have died. What is not clear is how many people in the USA have actually been infected, which could greatly affect the fatality rate. What else is not clear is how many of those people died from Covid, how many died with Covid, and how many died after recovering from Covid. That information also could change the true fatality rate. What we do know for sure, Father, is that we are all going to die and using any and all means at our disposal to delay that day is not how I intend to live.

        • They are not vaccines, only so-called so as to be covered under the vaccine legal immunity act, and to gain emergency use prerogatives. Even Pharma admits they are other than vaccine, calling them “gene therapy”. But I would eliminate the biased noun and call them instead “experimental biological agent”. Which exposes the truth that those who take them are the guinea pigs and should *not* be coerced in any way to take them. Read the Nuremberg code of medical ethics.

      • Imagine if Catholics throughout the world could provide a united witness to accept the pain and consequences of suffering a short term disease rather than compromise on abortion. It would go a long way towards rebuilding the Church’s moral authority after a century of so much corruption.

    • Fr.Schneider ,
      This issue is frustrating because it seems fueled politically on every side. There’s no room for dissent or questioning whether the narrative is pro vaccine or con.
      It’s true as you state that the varicella vaccine has a much more direct connection to feticide than the 2 Covid vaccines merely tested on the HEK cell line. Some parents like myself have refused for decades to have our children vaccinated against chicken pox because of that. Ditto for rubella.
      Chicken pox becomes more serious a disease with age so refusing the vaccine may have risks down the road.
      I just wish we could have transparency in the number of labs, food and pharmaceutical products, and vaccines tested on the HEK cell line. It’s not just about Covid. It’s about most every drug in your medicine cabinet and any food product with added flavorings or sweeteners.
      If we only are outraged by one HEK tested product or vaccine we are being selectively outraged.
      We shouldn’t be critical of the blind spots in wokeness if we cultivate those in our own versions of righteousness. The Moderna and Pfizer vaccines are in no way unique in being tested on HEK cells. There may be good reasons to avoid those vaccines but we should base our decisions on a conscience informed by facts not political narratives.

    • When in the past half century have professional theologians and bioethicists distinguished themselves as being in any way ethical?

  21. I found the objections better than his answers. I saw a lot of bald assertion and pontificating when he was stating his own views.

    A better ‘sed contra’ to the narrow question of moral obligation would be to quote the authority which addresses specifically the vaccine. I do believe the CDF document allows space for conscientious objection even as it would lead eligible Catholics to be open to reception.

    It seems to me there is an irony in the vaccine objector’s bringing up the subject of fear since they too are fearful but with a different fear.

    • Timothy you may be interested in a well argued counterpoint. Roberto de Mattei published a 74 page e-book you can download titled, On the Moral Liceity of the Vaccination.

      • Father Morrello, I can’t tell if we should fight the coronavirus pandemic using Dr. Atlas’s “herd infection” or Dr. Fauci’s herd injection. Excerpt from Alberto Giubilini “Establishing the existence of a moral obligation to be vaccinated (both for adults and for children) despite the negligible contribution each vaccination can make to the realisation of herd immunity is important because such moral obligation would strengthen the justification for coercive vaccination policies.” Notice his unscientific assumption “negligible contribution” completely in defiance of CDC instructions. Somewhere I heard that the deadly COVID virus was worldwide. Others have said “we are all in this together”.

        • MorganB it appears the most remedial option is first to follow our conscience regarding the vaccine’s liceity, and preferably in favor of the common good. My advice based on medical affirmation of the very high safety of the vaccine plus the Church, morally credentialed persons Abp Naumann, De Mattei is to take the vaccine. All in all I hope enough will take the vaccine to facilitate herd immunity. Even without the vaccine herd immunity would hopefully [we can only presume] set in with high cost of life. Also the virus is new and we don’t have all the data to be definitive. And the variants can set us back unless herd immunity offsets it. If you’re vulnerable due to age and underlying condition I urge you take the vaccine preferably Moderna or Pfizer. You’re certainly in my prayers as all are during this crisis.

          • Father Peter. A thoughtful and measured response to this life stealing pandemic. God will always welcome those who consider their more vulnerable brethren first. I am fortunate to be part of such an insightful and compassionate forum. God bless.

  22. I find your words deeply empowering and well spoken. I for one have taken a hard stand on the vaccine. It does not have an approval to be used. Most people miss that. The number of people killed by the COVID vaccine is over 1700 Americans. The sad part is that is only the ones reported which is probably 1 in 10 at best.

    Thank you for taking the time to put pen to paper.

  23. I would encourage all to refresh their memories on what ‘fear’ of ones neighbor can do to a society. The Rwandan genocide is a good example. We have lost many friends due to the fact that we simply wanted to have discussions about our difference of opinion on the virus and the push for vaccines and the coming passports. We are willing to hear their views but unbelievably we are not afforded the same courtesy and it always seems to boil down to irrational fears. We have experienced so much anger for simply stating our opinion. I am so saddened by appears to be a diabolical delusion of the faithful. May God shine His light on the truth.

    • Good points Jen. Satan can use any issue to divide us. We should all be cautious about that whatever our views may be.
      God bless!

  24. Excellent response on the bioethics plane. I would add that jury is out on the c pox vaccine as some think its widespread use may leave one exposed to very painful shingles in adulthood.

    • From what I understand the chicken pox vaccine makes reoccurring shingles outbreaks more common in younger adults because they are not being exposed to chicken pox infections in the population. Theoretically when an adult who had varicella as a child is later exposed to chicken pox it triggers something in the immune system to suppress shingles. Because virtually every child has now been innoculated against chicken pox, that immune response doesn’t occur.
      That’s what I’ve read but perhaps there are other theories also.

  25. “Thou shalt not kill”…Fifth Commandment of Almighty God
    “Six things there are, which the Lord hateth, and the seventh His soul detesteth; Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood,” Proverbs 6:16-17 DRVersion
    “It must be clear that it is never morally justified to develop a vaccine through the use of cell lines of aborted fetuses.” Cardinal Raymond Burke

    The Moderna, Pfizer, Oxford/AstraZeneca, Johnson &Johnson/Janssen, Sanofi Pasteur and Translate Bio are all connected to the sin and crime of Abortion.

    The so-called COVID-19 vaccines are experimental mRNA injections made, developed and tested using fetal cells of aborted babies.

    It seems to me that knowing this, there shouldn’t be a hint of hesitancy about refusing and rejecting getting these EXPERIMENTAL genetically engineering jabs that have the potential to change one’s DNA.

    VIVA CRISTO REY!

  26. It is ILLEGAL to approve a vaccine when there are TREATMENTS and CURES for a disease. There are such treatments for “covid.” Therefore the ENTIRE VACCINE OPERATION is illegal.

    Three of the best-known treatments are Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, Quercetin. The defaming and suppression of these safe, effective treatments is just another crime connected with the fake “pandemic.” (There is a virus; there is no “pandemic.”) There are many with blood on their hands because of their role in keeping the public ignorant of these treatments, including those in EVERY LEVEL of the Catholic hierarchy.

  27. Fr. Matthew’s Schneider made an attempt to list drugs tested on the abortion cell line HEK-293. See here in the link “Goodbye modern medicine” at PATHEOS THROUGH THE CATHOLIC LENS, January 28 2021. The angle of attack should be different, viz. -:

    – drugs developed before abortion cell usage
    – drugs developed after abortion cell usages but without using abortion and cells
    – drugs then later tested on abortion cell
    – companies that have on-going abortion linkages
    – drugs now being produced generically without no on-going links to abortion
    – drugs with abortion “products” actually in them in them
    – relationships among drug companies, generic drug manufacturers and abortion cell/abortion products labs and groups, where they exist and as they existed.

    Then we can at least begin to get an outline of what we are really dealing with, how it is to be tackled and what gets ruled out right from the outset.

    https://www.patheos.com/blogs/throughcatholiclenses/2021/01/if-any-drug-tested-on-hek-293-is-immoral-goodbye-modern-medicine/

  28. Superbly outstanding article!

    It does not address the new vaccines and sterilisation / de-population connection vis-a-viz pro-life Pope St. JPII and pro-depopulation businessman Bill Gates (see quotes below), however, nor the other available medicines _other than_ the vaccine-alone (“sola vaccina”?) approach such as
    Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, Quercetin; nevertheless, it’s an excellent article from a Catholic morality perspective done in the philosophical logic of St. Thomas Aquinas.

    Below are two quotes from JPII and Bill Gates that I’d like to see addressed please, especially in light of the October 2014 Tetanus Vaccine Scandal in Kenya protested by Catholic Bishops (as it was noticeably marketed only to women of child bearing age) and found later, after random testing of three shots by Catholic doctors, that it contained HCG, a sterilising agent:

    “The close connection which exists, in mentality, between the practice of contraception and that of abortion is becoming increasingly obvious. It is being demonstrated in an alarming way by the development of chemical products, intrauterine devices and vaccines which, distributed with the same ease as contraceptives, really act as abortifacients in the very early stages of the development of the life of the new human being.”

    — Pope St. John Paul II, _Evangelium Vitae_, March 1995

    “First, we’ve got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent.”

    — Bill Gates, _Innovating to Zero_ TED Talk, February 2010

  29. All things considered, I guess that I would have preferred that the same level of effort spent on vaccine development had been spent on curative treatment.

    As I understand Dr. Fauci has some hand in one of the vaccines so it is understandable that he is in favor of vaccination rather than working toward a treatment.

    • Yes early treatments actually flatten the curve on hospitalizations and deaths…why have they been blocked? Perhaps because the Catholic ethical code provides a loophole for taking an otherwise illicit vaccine if there are no other options available?

  30. In addition to abortion tainted vaccines which is totally immoral to take or to utilize for any Catholic or for anyone with a halfway sense of decency and morality no human beings should be subject to medication when there is no illness as a preventative medicine. none it has never been utilized in the history of mankind you may take supplements to strengthen your immune but you never take a medication a toxic medication to get a disease so you don’t have to get the disease naturally that is insane… However what has happened to us is that we’ve become so polarized, so identity politics, so privileged, so much of a gated community mentality that we all stay in our little chapels or a little parish churches we push anyone aside that we don’t want to here or don’t feel comfortable with to make them leave and find a church of their comfort just as the Protestants have done all these centuries and that’s where Catholics are today… traditionalists hate traditionalist it’s insane no one is thinking right at all about anything.. the article was okay written but it lascks a lot of depth and lacks a lot of gusto to go into a real debatable battle to win. You want people who could win this fight go to Henry David Thoreau , Jack London, Mahatma Gandhi, Ayn Rand, she is a very great thinker and she doesn’t believe in altruism she would call this altruism she says I am born to be happy and we don’t have to look at God at this moment she says I have rights constitutional rights and that’s what takes precedent over anything if I want to help my neighbor I have the right to do that but when government gets involved to tell me to do something that’s where she draws the line and says no never government
    cannot interfere in our rights and this is beyond just interfering and basic rights this is going into your body the sacred temple of God to give you injections that are not necessary injections they’re not injections to stimulate your immune system to give you minerals and vitamins so you become stronger it’s medicine to fight no disease it’s medicine to give you a disease with chemical products so you don’t get a disease that’s insane way of thinking it’s not natural it’s beyond human way of thinking.. again I encourage Any Rand and George Carlin’s 6 minute YouTube video on germs carefully listen to them and you’ll see the least true humanity and don’t judge Miss Rand she’s a very very deep thinker and what they’re promoting now this altruistic mentality for the common good she condemns she speaks up on behalf of each individual person has rights as a person they’re created to be happy and to be free and no government entity should ever tell anyone what they should or should not do that is wrong but we lack men today men with guts men with ..

  31. There are many more vaccines being developed; I have hope for the one by the JPII Institute, which they are fundraising for , asking $325,000 for the first trial , then likely another 1.5 million . It will be 100% ethical and developed using traditional means and tested as was usual before – they predict it will take 2 years and be effective against all variants. As we are told that covid will be with us forever, Why is the catholic church not funding this? Surely , 2 million could be quickly raised across North America.

    • Good question! I wonder what would happen if a billion Catholics said no with all other Christians who also consider themselves anti abortion. I did not know about all those other drugs using aborted fetal cell lines before. If we never say no to this type of evil research it will not end. So many Catholics dont even think it is wrong to use the aborted fetal cell lines even the Catholic University uses the HEK 293 aborted fetal cell lines in their research been doing it for awhile. Thanks for reminding me about The John Paul II Medical Research Institute (JP2MRI) they have campaign in which they have $575,000 left to raise to meet the 750,000 goal.

3 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. Should COVID-19 Vaccines Be Mandated?
  2. Moguća grješnost cijepljenja protiv Covida-19 - Radio Ljubuški
  3. Whether There is a Moral Obligation to be Vaccinated – Clean Out Your Eyes

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.


*