A Christian’s Case Against Exemptions to Vaccine Mandates

[Belk]

But that’s not what I actually said. I specifically said that it does not stop the spread. I never said it doesn’t reduce the spread.

OK. That was not how it came across to me.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Well, but was it ever INTENDED to completely stop the spread?

Obviously that what their hopes were. I don’t see how this is even relevant.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Obviously that what their hopes were. I don’t see how this is even relevant.

You can get the flu vaccine and still get the flu. No vaccine is going to be 100%.

 

[BNR32FAN]

OK. That was not how it came across to me.

I appreciate that your seeking to debunk the conspiracy theories out there and I’m right on board with you on that. I apologize if my wording incorrectly conveyed my position on the matter. Like I said the vaccine is definitely a great idea and a major step in the right direction I just feel that we took one huge step forward then immediately took another huge step back that is going to result in keeping us right where we’ve been since the beginning. We need to be keeping the original precautions in place as well as administering the vaccinations to knock this thing right out of the park. I don’t see the logic in the decisions the government has been making of late.

 

[dogs4thewin]

@BNR32FAN so are mask mandates banned or is your particular district not offering them same with an online option?

 

[BNR32FAN]

@BNR32FAN so are mask mandates banned or is your particular district not offering them same with an online option?

No we have no virtual learning option this year which has made me quite furious. Not only am I forced by law to send my kids to school but they’re taking absolutely no precautions to protect them while they’re there and it appears that my daughter has caught the virus. I feel like according to the emails they’ve sent me and the fact that they’re not doing anything to prevent the spread I should have reasonably cause for a lawsuit.

 

[Belk]

I appreciate that your seeking to debunk the conspiracy theories out there and I’m right on board with you on that. I apologize if my wording incorrectly conveyed my position on the matter. Like I said the vaccine is definitely a great idea and a major step in the right direction I just feel that we took one huge step forward then immediately took another huge step back that is going to result in keeping us right where we’ve been since the beginning. We need to be keeping the original precautions in place as well as administering the vaccinations to knock this thing right out of the park. I don’t see the logic in the decisions the government has been making of late.

Thank you for that. It appears I completely misunderstood the thrust of your post. My apologies.

 

[dogs4thewin]

No we have no virtual learning option this year which has made me quite furious. Not only am I forced by law to send my kids to school but they’re taking absolutely no precautions to protect them while they’re there and it appears that my daughter has caught the virus. I feel like according to the emails they’ve sent me and the fact that they’re not doing anything to prevent the spread I should have reasonably cause for a lawsuit.

In GA they are allowing both ( although as far as I know most of the districts did not give an online option though some are turning to that. As to masks here in GA there has been a LOT of battling in some districts over it. When Dr. M. , the superintendent of my sister's district mandated them last week he KNEW he was going to take some heat, but tried to stop that by pointing out he wished to avoid going completely online. Now S. and the other teachers are on mask patrol ( as if they do not have enough to do). S has tried to explain to her third graders why they are wearing masks ( how that is going I do not know.)

 

[BNR32FAN]

In GA they are allowing both ( although as far as I know most of the districts did not give an online option though some are turning to that. As to masks here in GA there has been a LOT of battling in some districts over it. When Dr. M. , the superintendent of my sister's district mandated them last week he KNEW he was going to take some heat, but tried to stop that by pointing out he wished to avoid going completely online. Now S. and the other teachers are on mask patrol ( as if they do not have enough to do). S has tried to explain to her third graders why they are wearing masks ( how that is going I do not know.)

Yes my kids did virtual learning last year and it worked out really well. I was shocked to hear that they weren’t offering it this year. I have heard rumors that this might change so if my daughter does have COVID then I fully intend to put some pressure on them to either reinstate the virtual learning option or start taking precautions at the school to protect the kids. I can’t understand how they’ve fallen short on their obligation.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Yes my kids did virtual learning last year and it worked out really well. I was shocked to hear that they weren’t offering it this year. I have heard rumors that this might change so if my daughter does have COVID then I fully intend to put some pressure on them to either reinstate the virtual learning option or start taking precautions at the school to protect the kids. I can’t understand how they’ve fallen short on their obligation.

Here in north Ga. There have been protests that have at times been verbally abusive and maybe even violent over the issue of masks. Parents threatening to track healthcare workers down I believe. In my sister's district they actually count a child excused if the parent keep them home due to the mask mandate but do not send them in work. I guess to keep the peace and avoid court for cases of too many unexcused days.

 

[Kyrani]

One aspect of wisdom is choosing which battle is worth fighting. The vaccination debate is a pointless distraction from issues that really matter. If we love our neighbour as ourselves, surely getting vaccinated is the way to go. Who wants to pass on a disease that can kill when there is a vaccine?

The matter is no clear and the science is not there to justify the whole picture that is being painted. There is a virus and it can cause the person to have the flu. However the matter of the cytokine storms or excessive inflammation is the result of the immune system running amuck and causing serious life threatening problems in the body.

You can pass on the virus if someone comes into contact with your body fluids, but you don't pass on any disease. They may get the flu if their immunity is compromised for some reason, usually stress. The fight or flight response declines immunity with respect to infections.

But there is another matter that is being hidden and now with the pandemic, all traces of it are just about gone. This is the nocebo effect. It was seen clearly enough in the first 50 or 60 years of chemotherapy trials. At the time they believed that cancer was rapidly dividing cells so they had drugs that attacked rapidly dividing cells. Anyway, in the chemotherapy drug trials at that time they used to give those in the control group a sugar pill or saline injection. About 50% of the subjects in the control group, on the sugar pill or saline solution, lost their hair and vomited due to damage by the immune system on their hair follicles and gut lining.

All of the subjects knew that the drugs killed rapidly dividing cells. Those in the control group, who moved to believe that they had the real drug, also believed it would do damage to rapidly dividing cells in their hair follicles and gut lining and other areas like in the bone marrow. SO, on a BELIEF, their immune system moved to inflammation that did damage. This is no doubt the same in covid 19 where the disease goes beyond the flu and is seen as an autoimmune problem. But they are not spelling it out for the public. So getting vaccinated isn't going to stop that. In any case there are people with the vaccine getting long covid, which has to be due to foul game play and inhumane related people with an agenda. Ideas being used to move another person to develop physiological problems.

 

[hedrick]

Someone compared Covid vaccine to polio vaccine. As it happens, 2 does of polio vaccine is 90% effective. You are considers fully vaccinated after 3 or 4 does, depending upon which vaccine. The reason we got rid of polio wasn’t because the vaccine was better, but because there weren’t as many cases to start with. I assume it’s less transmissible.

 

[KCfromNC]

fear mongering? Are you talking about the media?

No, about your post. It should have been obvious, given I quoted what you wrote and not "the media" (not sure they're a member here).

 

[chevyontheriver]

They aren't always the same. Not acting to protect those persecuted is to engage in a remote moral evil. No one thinks it's morally neutral to not save someone when you have the opportunity. Likewise, it isn't morally neutral to refuse a safe and effective vaccine when that refusal puts others at risk. If that isn't a remote moral evil, then the phrase appears to lack any sort of meaning.

I'd suggest to you that you explore the terminology a bit better. I'm sure your opinions make sense to you but you really don't get the moral difference between a chosen act and choosing not to act.

Religious beliefs may or may not have to do with morality. For example, it might be a sincerely held religious belief that I pray at certain times throughout the day, e.g., if I were a Muslim. That has little to do with moral beliefs. Of course, some religious beliefs do deal with morality. I was stating that the ambiguity and arbitrariness of the "remote moral evil" argument results in a personal exception, not a religious one. An individual Catholic who decides to disregard their Pope and their bishops, i.e., their religious authorities, in their vaccine hesitancy is making a personal decision. That wouldn't be grounds for a religious exception; it would be a personal exception.

What I outlined to you has a solid basis in Catholic moral teaching. And pope Francis is woefully short of understanding Catholic moral teaching. He's not the giant his two predecessors were. Frankly, it isn't his competence. Various bishops do say that the vaccines out so far do have moral problems, that they are remote, and that Catholics should follow their consciences in regard to getting or not getting the vaccines. It is a valid exercise of a Catholic conscience to refuse these vaccines on the basis of their involvement with abortion OR to reluctantly accept them. No ecclesial power on earth can compel one or the other outcome. It is not up to a priest or a bishop or a pope. It is up to an individual's conscience. In that way it IS personal. But also religious, described in detail in the Catechism and in papal documents.

So what levels of remoteness do you find worthy of consideration? Why? Is it an arbitrary and personal decision on your part?

It is a decision of a well formed conscience. Everybody has the responsibility to form their conscience well, but how effectively they do that varies. Catholic teaching on conscience is explicit in the Catechism of the Catholic Church among other places. You might want to check it out. I recommend Germain Grisez as found here: The Way of the Lord Jesus by Germain Grisez

If a Catholic wants to go to jail instead of complying with a vaccine mandate, so be it. Just rewards.

Straight out of Thoreau. If you want to engage in civil disobedience you ought to be willing to go to jail. The civil rights movement would have gotten nowhere without that willingness to be beaten or imprisoned or lynched. A serious Catholic might well take the punishment for disobedience. If that pleases you I don't mind.

 

[tstor]

I'd suggest to you that you explore the terminology a bit better. I'm sure your opinions make sense to you but you really don't get the moral difference between a chosen act and choosing not to act.

What you've been arguing is that choosing to get vaccinated constitutes an engagement with "remote moral evil." The act itself isn't an immediate moral evil, e.g., willingly aborting an unborn child. The moral evilness of it is remote. You haven't yet articulated how choosing to not get vaccinated isn't also a remote moral evil though. You're correct in saying that it isn't an immediate moral evil. The average person who chooses to not get vaccinated isn't willingly going around trying to infect others. However, the remote moral evil is that by not being vaccinated they are putting others in danger.

You're correct in stating that there is a moral difference between choosing to act and choosing not to act. That doesn't mean choosing not to act can't be immoral though. For example, it's both immoral to hold a child's head underwater and to sit idly by while some other person holds a child's head underwater. I also disagree with your assertion that choosing not to get vaccinated is somehow morally neutral. There are moral consequences to not getting vaccinated.

What I outlined to you has a solid basis in Catholic moral teaching. And pope Francis is woefully short of understanding Catholic moral teaching. He's not the giant his two predecessors were. Frankly, it isn't his competence. Various bishops do say that the vaccines out so far do have moral problems, that they are remote, and that Catholics should follow their consciences in regard to getting or not getting the vaccines. It is a valid exercise of a Catholic conscience to refuse these vaccines on the basis of their involvement with abortion OR to reluctantly accept them. No ecclesial power on earth can compel one or the other outcome. It is not up to a priest or a bishop or a pope. It is up to an individual's conscience. In that way it IS personal. But also religious, described in detail in the Catechism and in papal documents.

A Catholic can always choose to disregard the moral instructions of their bishops based on individual considerations. Of course, they aren't being a good Catholic in doing so. The Pope has explicitly urged Catholics to get vaccinated. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops put out the following statement in their document entitled "Moral Considerations Regarding the New COVID-19 Vaccines" (emphasis mine):

In view of the gravity of the current pandemic and the lack of availability of alternative vaccines, the reasons to accept the new COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna are sufficiently serious to justify their use, despite their remote connection to morally compromised cell lines. In addition, receiving the COVID-19 vaccine ought to be understood as an act of charity toward the other members of our community. In this way, being vaccinated safely against COVID-19 should be considered an act of love of our neighbor and part of our moral responsibility for the common good.

If an individual Catholic wants to reject the determinations of his/her bishops, so be it. A religious exemption would be hard to come by as a result.

Straight out of Thoreau. If you want to engage in civil disobedience you ought to be willing to go to jail. The civil rights movement would have gotten nowhere without that willingness to be beaten or imprisoned or lynched. A serious Catholic might well take the punishment for disobedience. If that pleases you I don't mind.

It would please me to know that those who are a danger to the people around them are taken care of. This should take the form of a vaccine mandate. The highly political and misinformed nature of the vaccines has created hesitancy where it otherwise wouldn't have existed. As such, a mandate is growing more necessary. The people who would hold out for lousy reasons should be punished accordingly, again, because refusing the get vaccinated has consequences.

 

[zippy2006]

What you've been arguing is that choosing to get vaccinated constitutes an engagement with "remote moral evil." The act itself isn't an immediate moral evil, e.g., willingly aborting an unborn child. The moral evilness of it is remote. You haven't yet articulated how choosing to not get vaccinated isn't also a remote moral evil though. You're correct in saying that it isn't an immediate moral evil. The average person who chooses to not get vaccinated isn't willingly going around trying to infect others. However, the remote moral evil is that by not being vaccinated they are putting others in danger.

You're correct in stating that there is a moral difference between choosing to act and choosing not to act. That doesn't mean choosing not to act can't be immoral though. For example, it's both immoral to hold a child's head underwater and to sit idly by while some other person holds a child's head underwater. I also disagree with your assertion that choosing not to get vaccinated is somehow morally neutral. There are moral consequences to not getting vaccinated.

Here is the argument in question:

Catholics hold to the principle that the end doesn't justify the means, or that one is not allowed to do evil that good may come. That is, when an act is evil it cannot be carried out, even in light of the good consequences that one hopes to bring about.

Now abortion is a variety of murder, and thus is intrinsically evil. Cooperation with abortion is evil, and cannot be justified by any end, no matter how good. Further, the current Covid vaccines were developed or tested with the cloned cells of aborted fetuses, and thus constitute a form of remote cooperation with abortion.

Doing good things is obligatory in certain circumstances, such as in the case where the child is being drowned. Really we should always do good things when we can, and we should try to bring about good effects when we can. Limiting the spread and severity of Covid-19 are good things, and should--ceteris paribus--be done.

But in this case we have a good end and an evil means. The good end is limiting the spread and severity of Covid-19. The evil means is cooperation with abortion via vaccination. According to the principle noted above, vaccination is impermissible despite the fact that it would bring about good.

P.S. One can say that failure to bring about some good is an "evil" if they like, but what they are really saying is that one ought to have attempted to bring about some good consequence. This goes back to the principle: no good consequence can outweigh or justify an intrinsically evil act.​

 

[chevyontheriver]

A Catholic can always choose to disregard the moral instructions of their bishops based on individual considerations. Of course, they aren't being a good Catholic in doing so.

Untrue. A bishop knows, or should know, the limits to their authority. Trying to compel a person to engage in evil, even a remote evil, is beyond their authority. One must follow conscience rather than a bishop in this regard. That makes one a good Catholic to disregard a bishop and not cooperate in a moral evil.

The Pope has explicitly urged Catholics to get vaccinated. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops put out the following statement in their document entitled "Moral Considerations Regarding the New COVID-19 Vaccines" (emphasis mine):

As I have said before the pope is acting beyond his competence. The bishop’s conference does note that there is a remote cooperation with evil involved. They recommend the vaccine. But they cannot compel it for a Catholic because that would be compelling cooperation with evil, however remote. Many of the same bishops are assisting their people work out objections to the vaccines currently available.

If an individual Catholic wants to reject the determinations of his/her bishops, so be it. A religious exemption would be hard to come by as a result.

Thomas More didn’t get a religious exemption either, when all the bishops of England except Fisher stood with the king. More nonetheless did right.

It would please me to know that those who are a danger to the people around them are taken care of. This should take the form of a vaccine mandate. The highly political and misinformed nature of the vaccines has created hesitancy where it otherwise wouldn't have existed. As such, a mandate is growing more necessary. The people who would hold out for lousy reasons should be punished accordingly, again, because refusing the get vaccinated has consequences.

Catholics generally are not science denying conspiracy mongers. If and when the Novavax vaccine comes out I suspect Catholics who have a problem with the current vaccines will line up to get that vaccine. You can punish Catholics if you want to but how do you square that with the concept of bodily autonomy as the basis for a woman having the right to abort her baby? Can a Catholic seeking to follow her conscience have no bodily autonomy while others can have bodily autonomy?

 

[Tiberius Lee]

My dear brother a vaccine does not help to stop spreading the virus, you can still be a carrier, and you can still die from the virus. You believe the lies the media told you not the truth as it really is.

So please shake your head all your like brother, i will not permit that poison to enter my body. So help me God.

i find it very sad that you have no better discernment than this when it comes to the world and what the wicked are up to.

Who sends pestilence to warn the people to turn from evil? So rather than shaking your head at me refusing to inject my body with poison, try calling sinners to repentance for that is what stops the virus for real not these fake vaccines.

If you don't believe me just look at Israel. They are the most vaccinated Country in the world and they are preparing their population for the fourth vaccine. That is precisely what happens when you destroy the natural immune system in people, then you need the magic spells from the merchants all the time. People are dying i record numbers there. The vaccine is a farce.

The plan of the greedy merchants was all along to have the whole world vaccinated at their will. Constant vaccines through out our lives or without our freedoms that is what people like Bill Gates have in store for us.

So glad Jesus is going to put a stop to all this when He comes.

Lets be honest .. are you saying you don’t use any medical treatment for any thing – eye glasses, pain killer or any other medical therapeutical .. if you do use any of that , then all your argument about COVID vaccine is completely mute.

 

[tstor]

Untrue. A bishop knows, or should know, the limits to their authority. Trying to compel a person to engage in evil, even a remote evil, is beyond their authority. One must follow conscience rather than a bishop in this regard. That makes one a good Catholic to disregard a bishop and not cooperate in a moral evil.

This would be incorrect. The authorities in the Church determine such things. Again, an individual Catholic can certainly choose to disregard the authorities of the Church on such matters, but they wouldn't be doing so as a good Catholic. If you disagree, then you shouldn't have any issues with Catholics for Choice.

As I have said before the pope is acting beyond his competence. The bishop’s conference does note that there is a remote cooperation with evil involved. They recommend the vaccine. But they cannot compel it for a Catholic because that would be compelling cooperation with evil, however remote. Many of the same bishops are assisting their people work out objections to the vaccines currently available.

The Pope is acting beyond his competence in giving moral and religious instruction to the Church? That's a bit of a stretch. You're correct that the Bishop's Conference does note such cooperation but concludes that Catholics should still get vaccinated. It seems clear to me that Catholics seeking a religious exemption have little ground to stand on. The authorities in the Church have made it clear that it's morally acceptable for Catholics to get vaccinated. The "Note on the morality of using
some anti-Covid-19 vaccines" put out by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reads:

At the same time, practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary. In any case, from the ethical point of view, the morality of vaccination depends not only on the duty to protect one's own health, but also on the duty to pursue the common good. In the absence of other means to stop or even prevent the epidemic, the common good may recommend vaccination, especially to protect the weakest and most exposed. Those who, however, for reasons of conscience, refuse vaccines produced with cell lines from aborted fetuses, must do their utmost to avoid, by other prophylactic means and appropriate behavior, becoming vehicles for the transmission of the infectious agent. In particular, they must avoid any risk to the health of those who cannot be vaccinated for medical or other reasons, and who are the most vulnerable.

If this is true, on what basis would Catholics seek a religious exemption if a mandate were issued? Is putting oneself in legal trouble for the sake of avoiding vaccination really a case of doing one's "utmost to avoid, by other prophylactic means and appropriate behavior, becoming vehicles for the transmission of the infectious agent"? Surely not.

Catholics generally are not science denying conspiracy mongers. If and when the Novavax vaccine comes out I suspect Catholics who have a problem with the current vaccines will line up to get that vaccine. You can punish Catholics if you want to but how do you square that with the concept of bodily autonomy as the basis for a woman having the right to abort her baby? Can a Catholic seeking to follow her conscience have no bodily autonomy while others can have bodily autonomy?

Absolute bodily autonomy isn't something we have traditionally valued in western societies. You can't walk around naked in public. You can't sell your own organs. You can't consume certain narcotics. You can't consume alcohol while under a certain age. The list goes on and on. I believe only libertarians/anarchists would have any business arguing in favor of abortion rights by appealing to absolute bodily autonomy.

 

[TLK Valentine]

But that’s not what I actually said. I specifically said that it does not stop the spread. I never said it doesn’t reduce the spread.

Can we agree that while reduction is not as good as stopping, it is still exponentially better than doing nothing?

Seat belts reduce traffic fatalities, but sadly, do not stop them. I shudder to think what would happen if seat belt laws had been introduced this year, instead of 40 years ago.