A Christian’s Case Against Exemptions to Vaccine Mandates

[Mark Quayle]

First, not all vaccines ever developed have used aborted baby fetal cell lines in development or testing. So an objection to one vaccine is not at all inconsistent if one does not object to all vaccines. Vaccines differ morally. The Catholic issue here is not an objection to all vaccines, just morally tainted vaccines.

Second, it is only becoming apparent which recently developed medical treatments are made with the use of fetal cell lines derived from abortion. Seems that quite a few may be developed or tested using abortion derived cell lines. As that knowledge grows I would expect that Catholic objectors to participation in the remote evils of these products would want to abstain from all of them to follow their consciences. So refusing a particular Covid vaccine while unknowingly participating in remote moral evil by taking a compromised aspirin pill is not an inconsistency problem of the objector but a lack of information problem of the objector. More information will allow them to be more consistent. An informed conscience is required for that conscience to act correctly. No sin if the facts aren't known: no deliberate inconsistency if the facts aren't known. Let the facts be known.

It may be that using aborted baby fetal cell lines is close to a norm in medicine. That would be a terrible thing. It may be that we are participating in remote moral evil every time we turn around. We should object to that when we find out about instances of that, either by refusing such medicines in the future or demanding untainted medicines. There are enough Catholics, enough Catholic doctors and nurses, enough Catholic hospitals, and enough Catholic medical schools to make changes. We do not have to complacently participate even remotely in moral evil. We can resist, some of us by refusal. It is a moral choice for Catholics to do so.

Frankly I find it amazing that so many who are so set into Government mandates for the sake of protecting lives are so set into Government supporting [even late term] abortion for the sake of harvesting useful body tissues, or for the sake of mitigating inconvenience.

Does nobody else see hypocrisy here? Something is just not adding up.

 

[dogs4thewin]

I believe that medical exemptions should be the only ones. I do not support exemptions based on religion. My reasoning is that it is too easy to abuse that (unless they did it like they do in the military where you basically have to prove to your supervisors that it is truly a religion thing and that takes some doing.

 

[Kyrani]

And there are limits to this. You can't offer human sacrifices because your conscience demands it. You can't throw stones at your adulterous neighbor because your conscience demands it.

Human sacrifices can ONLY be done WITHOUT a conscience. A conscience means we are connected spiritually with others, i.e., we have love. This is prohibitive of human sacrifices and also throwing stones at adulterous neighbors.

 

[tstor]

If the law mandates the vaccine I may take it. As for selling my organs or walking around naked, are those laws intended for protecting my own body? Are they intended against encroachment on the lives of others? Or maybe for preventing moral chaos.

There are various reasons for why selling organs is illegal. One of those reasons is for the protection of one's own body. Can you imagine the number of impoverished and homeless people who would sell their own organs if they were given the opportunity? Vaccine mandates aren't just for protecting your own body; they also exist for the protection of others. A vaccinated population reduces the spread of the virus. Not everyone can received the vaccine, e.g., young children and those with medical conflicts.

Of course not. As if! Nor is anyone allowed to drive anymore because they might have an accident and hurt someone else. Nor can we build near beaches because our house might be knocked into another if we get a strong enough storm surge or tidal wave. "C'mon, man", don't get ridiculous.

Precisely. There are limits to what an individual can conscientiously object to. You can't refuse to pay taxes because the money goes to things you disagree with. You can't marry multiple women because you disagree with laws restricting us to monogamy. Finally, you can't refuse to get a vaccine merely because you think a mandate is politically unsavory.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

My problem with the vaccine is my problem with overbearing government and political correctness and liberal rule.

This is what they are trying to shame people into ignoring and painting them as "paranoid" for seeing the approaching danger.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Frankly I find it amazing that so many who are so set into Government mandates for the sake of protecting lives are so set into Government supporting [even late term] abortion for the sake of harvesting useful body tissues, or for the sake of mitigating inconvenience.

Does nobody else see hypocrisy here? Something is just not adding up.

The abortionists claim a right to absolute bodily autonomy where a baby has to die to protect that autonomy of the mother. The vaccine mandate folks claim zero right to bodily autonomy because you or someone might possibly die. You are right that it doesn't add up.

And yet this says little about conscience based objection to the current crop of Covid vaccines. It does point out a glaring inconsistency. President Biden bends over backwards in support of abortion for the sake of bodily autonomy and may act against the very same bodily autonomy if he mandates vaccines. One wonders what government will do.

 

[dogs4thewin]

This is what they are trying to shame people into ignoring and painting them as "paranoid" for seeing the approaching danger.

The numbers are suggesting that the vaccine offers protection it seems to me that NOT having the vaccine is more dangerous. In fact if you look at two of my recent threads you will see just how strongly I feel about the vaccine.


vaccines and rationing care ( for Christians only)

and a version for everyone here
the battle over vaccines (rationing care).

 

[chevyontheriver]

Human sacrifices can ONLY be done WITHOUT a conscience. A conscience means we are connected spiritually with others, i.e., we have love. This is prohibitive of human sacrifices and also throwing stones at adulterous neighbors.

Maybe. Maybe not. It might be possible to believe in human sacrifices yet in conscience reject stealing from a neighbor. Peace in the neighborhood yet jihad for infidels. Conscience is a tricky thing. It needs to be well formed. Not everybody has a well formed conscience.

 

[chevyontheriver]

The numbers are suggesting that the vaccine offers protection it seems to me that NOT having the vaccine is more dangerous.

That might or might not be a practical argument but it is not a moral argument.

 

[truthisfreedom2019]

Would have Jesus and his Disciples got the vaccine if he was here? Would he have encouraged it?

 

[dogs4thewin]

That might or might not be a practical argument but it is not a moral argument.

so Christians cannot support vaccine mandates on practical (secular) arguments?

 

[dogs4thewin]

Would have Jesus and his Disciples got the vaccine if he was here? Would he have encouraged it?

Kinda hard to tell since back in that day there was no such thing.

 

[tstor]

First, not all vaccines ever developed have used aborted baby fetal cell lines in development or testing. So an objection to one vaccine is not at all inconsistent if one does not object to all vaccines. Vaccines differ morally. The Catholic issue here is not an objection to all vaccines, just morally tainted vaccines.

Second, it is only becoming apparent which recently developed medical treatments are made or tested with the use of fetal cell lines derived from abortion. Seems that quite a few may be developed or tested using abortion derived cell lines. As that knowledge grows I would expect that Catholic objectors to participation in the remote evils of these products would want to abstain from all of them to follow their consciences. So refusing a particular Covid vaccine while unknowingly participating in remote moral evil by taking a compromised aspirin pill is not an inconsistency problem of the objector but a lack of information problem of the objector. More information will allow them to be more consistent. An informed conscience is required for that conscience to act correctly. No sin if the facts aren't known: no deliberate inconsistency if the facts aren't known. Let the facts be known.

It may be that using aborted baby fetal cell lines is close to a norm in medicine. That would be a terrible thing. It may be that we are participating in remote moral evil every time we turn around. We should object to that when we find out about instances of that, either by refusing such medicines in the future or demanding untainted medicines. There are enough Catholics, enough Catholic doctors and nurses, enough Catholic hospitals, and enough Catholic medical schools to make changes. We do not have to complacently participate even remotely in moral evil. We can resist, some of us by refusal. It is a moral choice for Catholics to do so.

Right. The issue is that your standard of “morally tainted” appears to be entirely arbitrary and, frankly, too broad. Some of your tax money goes to research and development that uses fetal cells. Do the same Catholics who want religious exemptions for vaccination also want religious exemptions for taxation? If not, why not? Many of the products sold in stores are researched, developed, tested, and even produced in morally dubious ways. Do the Catholics who’re seeking a religious exemption for the vaccination because of “remote moral evils” show consistent concern for all remote moral evils? If not, why not?

Further, this business of a “remote moral evil” would appear to work both ways. A Catholic who refuses to get a medically tested and safe vaccine for a highly infectious and deadly disease is objectively putting others at risk. Is that not a remote moral evil? If not, why not? Does one outweigh the other? Does it come down to individual conscience? If so, it would appear to be less of a religious exemption and more of a personal exemption.

 

[chevyontheriver]

so Christians cannot support vaccine mandates on practical (secular) arguments?

You could. Do you have a moral basis for demanding a mandate?

 

[dqhall]

I thought this was an interesting guest essay published by The New York Times. I have provided some relevant excerpts (emphasis mine) for those who don’t have a subscription.

A Christian’s Case Against Exemptions to Vaccine Mandates
By Curtis Chang
Sept. 6, 2021​

The Amish do not believe in using motorized vehicles or lightening rods. Their religion is not popular.

Over 70% of adults have been vaccinated. About 10% of Americans tested positive for the virus and recovered or died. An 80% majority seem to be protected, but may need booster shots eventually.

Fewer people are dying. The vaccinated may do business in public with some confidence.

Some people are isolated without transportation and can not receive the vaccinations.

A fraction of evangelicals are opposed to vaccinations. People may ignore them.

 

[dogs4thewin]

You could. Do you have a moral basis for demanding a mandate?

not really other than that I feel that wanting an exemption on grounds of religion (moral) is too open to abuse.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

You could. Do you have a moral basis for demanding a mandate?

.

 

[tstor]

The Amish do not believe in using motorized vehicles or lightening rods. Their religion is not popular.

Over 70% of adults have been vaccinated. About 10% of Americans tested positive for the virus and recovered or died. An 80% majority seem to be protected, but may need booster shots eventually.

Fewer people are dying. The vaccinated may do business in public with some confidence.

Some people are isolated without transportation and can not receive the vaccinations.

A fraction of evangelicals are opposed to vaccinations. People may ignore them.

You could be correct. I think the major issue is regional disparities.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Like many of these threads on other similar subjects like masking, I think it is "What would Jesus do?" with a strong implied assumption that Jesus would not heal the person or work some kind of miracle like he did in the Bible, because that sort of thing has gone out of fashion.

There can still be miracles but that does not mean that we do not take steps to not need them when we can.

 

[dogs4thewin]

You could be correct. I think the major issue is regional disparities.

How so? I live in a rural county here in GA and anyone 16+ can get a vaccine at the health department. I do not know if 12-15 can simply because I do not know if they still have the particular vaccine approved for them, but if they do anyone 12+ can get a vaccine in this rural county.