When disagreements arise over church teaching, I usually find it helpful to go to the source documents. This is not to disregard thoughtful articles other Catholics have put much time and effort into; they can be very helpful, and I appreciate mulling over their thoughts and considerations. However, when it comes to making an informed decision for my family, I think it would be irresponsible on my part to look only at commentaries, and not at the source documents themselves.
Regarding the use of vaccines from the fetal cell line, there is an authoritative statement found here in a letter from the Pontifical Academy for Life (with Cardinal Ratzinger’s approval), sent in response to a plea for help from Debi Vinnedge, President and Executive Director of Children of God for Life.
The letter from the Pontifical Academy for Life stated:
“As regards those who need to use such vaccines for reasons of health, it must be emphasized that, apart from every form of formal cooperation, in general, doctors or parents who resort to the use of these vaccines for their children, in spite of knowing their origin (voluntary abortion), carry out a form of very remote mediate material cooperation, and thus very mild, in the performance of the original act of abortion, and a mediate material cooperation, with regard to the marketing of cells coming from abortions, and immediate, with regard to the marketing of vaccines produced with such cells. The cooperation is therefore more intense on the part of the authorities and national health systems that accept the use of the vaccines.
However, in this situation, the aspect of passive cooperation is that which stands out most. It is up to the faithful and citizens of upright conscience (fathers of families, doctors, etc.) to oppose, even by making an objection of conscience, the ever more widespread attacks against life and the “culture of death” which underlies them. From this point of view, the use of vaccines whose production is connected with procured abortion constitutes at least a mediate remote passive material cooperation to the abortion, and an immediate passive material cooperation with regard to their marketing. Furthermore, on a cultural level, the use of such vaccines contributes in the creation of a generalized social consensus to the operation of the pharmaceutical industries which produce them in an immoral way.”
In essence, there are different levels of cooperation with evil. When an individual receives a vaccine from the fetal cell line due to genuine need, the level of cooperation with the abortion is remote, but his degree of cooperation with the marketing of cell lines and the the marketing of these vaccines is more intense. Also, as the Pontifical Academy for Life makes clear, OUR (the faithful’s) passive cooperation is what stands out the most… and this degree of cooperation in the culture of death is also more intense. Fr. Toracco expounded on this,
“The Academy defines passive cooperation as ‘the omission of an act of denunciation or impediment of a sinful action carried out by another person, insomuch as there was a moral duty to do that which was omitted.’”
This sounds eerily similar to what Sheen said about Nazi Germany:
“Nazism is the disease of culture in its most virulent form, and could not have come to power in Germany unless the rest of the world were sick. Were we honest we would admit that we are all citizens of an apostate world, a world that has abandoned God. For this apostasy, we are all in part responsible, but none more that we Christians who were meant to be the salt of the earth to prevent its corruption. No! It is not the bad dictators who made the world bad’ it is bad thinking. It is, therefore, in the realm of ideas that we will have to restore the world!”
~Venerable Fulton Sheen, “War and Revolution” address delivered on January 3, 1943 part of his series “The Crisis in Christendom”
The letter goes on to say:
“Therefore, doctors and fathers of families have a duty to take recourse to alternative vaccines13 (if they exist), putting pressure on the political authorities and health systems so that other vaccines without moral problems become available. They should take recourse, if necessary, to the use of conscientious objection 14 with regard to the use of vaccines produced by means of cell lines of aborted human foetal origin.
Equally, they should oppose by all means (in writing, through the various associations, mass media, etc.) the vaccines which do not yet have morally acceptable alternatives, creating pressure so that alternative vaccines are prepared, which are not connected with the abortion of a human foetus, and requesting rigorous legal control of the pharmaceutical industry producers.
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. However, if the latter are exposed to considerable dangers to their health, vaccines with moral problems pertaining to them may also be used on a temporary basis. The moral reason is that the duty to avoid passive material cooperation is not obligatory if there is grave inconvenience.
Moreover, we find, in such a case, a proportional reason, in order to accept the use of these vaccines in the presence of the danger of favouring the spread of the pathological agent, due to the lack of vaccination of children. This is particularly true in the case of vaccination against German measles15.
In any case, there remains a moral duty to continue to fight and to employ every lawful means in order to make life difficult for the pharmaceutical industries which act unscrupulously and unethically. However, the burden of this important battle cannot and must not fall on innocent children and on the health situation of the population – especially with regard to pregnant women.
To summarize, it must be confirmed that:
-there is a grave responsibility to use alternative vaccines and to make a conscientious objection with regard to those which have moral problems;
– as regards the vaccines without an alternative, the need to contest so that others may be prepared must be reaffirmed, as should be the lawfulness of using the former in the meantime insomuch as is necessary in order to avoid a serious risk not only for one’s own children but also, and perhaps more specifically, for the health conditions of the population as a whole – especially for pregnant women;
– the lawfulness of the use of these vaccines should not be misinterpreted as a declaration of the lawfulness of their production, marketing and use, but is to be understood as being a passive material cooperation and, in its mildest and remotest sense, also active, morally justified as an extrema ratio due to the necessity to provide for the good of one’s children and of the people who come in contact with the children (pregnant women);
– such cooperation occurs in a context of moral coercion of the conscience of parents, who are forced to choose to act against their conscience or otherwise, to put the health of their children and of the population as a whole at risk. This is an unjust alternative choice, which must be eliminated as soon as possible.”
Thus, in regard to vaccines from unethical origins, we have the duty to use ethically sourced vaccines if they exist, the obligation to put pressure on political authorities and healthcare systems to make ethically sourced vaccines, and a grave responsibility to state our conscientious objections towards immorally sourced vaccines.
For diseases which there are no ethically acceptable vaccines available, it is right to abstain, if it can be done so safely. However, if exposed to considerable dangers to their health, these vaccines may be used on a temporary basis. For example, if Ebola becomes a public health threat in the US and the only vaccine available was from the fetal cell line, it may be possible for Americans to, in good conscience, justify the use of the vaccine. However, as there are currently no approved vaccines and because the vaccines that are currently on the fast track for approval are from the fetal cell line, we must take action. As Vinnedge explained:
“Right now there are no approved vaccines [for Ebola] which is why it is incumbent upon the faithful to write and protest and do whatever necessary to ensure that they make the vaccine morally or at minimum, provide moral alternatives on fast-track as well so that people have a choice. If people do nothing, THAT would be sinful since the Vatican has given rigorous instruction on what we are to do.”
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the approval of Pope Benedict XVI, has also issued Instruction Dignitas Personae On Certain Bioethical Questions which states:
“Of course, within this general picture there exist differing degrees of responsibility. Grave reasons may be morally proportionate to justify the use of such “biological material”. Thus, for example, danger to the health of children could permit parents to use a vaccine which was developed using cell lines of illicit origin, while keeping in mind that everyone has the duty to make known their disagreement and to ask that their health care system make other types of vaccines available.”
Note the use of the words may and could (not must or should). Also, note the importance of carefully weighing the principle of proportionality when justifying the use of vaccines from an illicit origin. Keep in mind, a proportionally just reason doesn’t alleviate our other responsibilities (to state objections and push for morally sourced vaccines).
In summary, when Catholics with well formed consciences exercise prudential judgment, in areas where where cooperation with evil is passive and remote, they might reach different conclusions and that’s okay. But it’s important that their consciences are formed based on authentic church teaching and not merely the opinions of others. It’s my sincere hope that others who seriously examine these documents will be able to navigate this important issue.
—————————————————————————————————————————
Further reading:
- D. Vinnedge, Religious Conscience & Aborted Fetal Vaccines, COGFL, 2011.
http://www.cogforlife.org/2011/01/01/religious-conscience-aborted-fetal-vaccines/
- Rev. Stephen F. Torraco, Ph.D., Formal vs Material cooperation, EWTN, 2002.
The link directly above no longer works, an archived copy from the Wayback Machine can be found here:
- Rev. Stephen F. Torraco, Ph.D., Overcoming “Tunnel Vision”: The Pontifical Academy for Life on Vaccines Prepared from Cells Derived from Aborted Human Fetuses
- Rev. Stephen F. Torraco, Ph.D., The Subtle and Far Reaching Tentacles of the Culture of Death, COGFL.
http://www.cogforlife.org/rev-torraco/
- St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 43.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3043.htm
- Fr. John Echert, God’s Will.
http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=311586&
The link directly above no longer works. If you have a link to the archived article I would be eternally grateful if you shared it with me. Thank you!
Originally published November 1, 2014 for Sacred Heart Abolitionist Society.
Interplanetary Dust 