The morality of COVID-19 vaccines

If morally unproblematic alternatives were available, anything produced or tested using cell lines made from aborted fetuses should be rejected to honor the inherent dignity of the aborted victim. The question remains: is it always and everywhere wrong for a person to take advantage of this advantage if no alternatives are available?

While it is wonderful to have COVID-19 vaccines so early, there are sadly reasons why some - if not many - will choose not to receive them. Some have doubts about the side effects; others believe the pandemic is too publicized and used by the forces of evil to exercise social control. (These concerns are worthy of consideration but are not the point of this essay.)

Since all currently available vaccines have made use (in both manufacturing and testing) of fetal cell lines developed from tissues taken from infants killed in the womb, most objections have to do with the possibility of being morally guilty of the evil of abortion.

Almost all the moral authorities of the Church who have issued statements on the morality of the use of such vaccines have determined that their use would involve only remote material cooperation with evil, a cooperation that is morally acceptable when the benefits to be obtained are proportionate. The Vatican recently presented a justification based on traditional categories of Catholic moral thinking and encouraged people to receive the vaccine for the common good.

While respecting the strict and careful reasoning of the Vatican document and many others, I think the principle of cooperation with evil on current COVID-19 vaccines is not applicable here, although it is a common misapplication. I (and others) believe that the category "cooperation with evil" rightly applies only to actions to which one's "contribution" is provided before or simultaneously with the action performed. To speak of contribution to an accomplished action is to speak in an imprecise way. How can I contribute to something that has already happened? How can the acceptance of an advantage deriving from a past action be a “contribution” to the action itself? I cannot want something that has been done to be done or not done. Nor can I contribute to it, although I can certainly agree or object to the action being taken. Whether I contributed or not,

The fact that the use of vaccines from aborted fetal cell lines is not a form of cooperation with evil does not, however, mean that it is morally unproblematic to use them.

Some moralists are now speaking more accurately of "appropriation" or what has been known as the "benefit of illicit gains". This is a principle that allows for actions such as benefiting from inexpensive products made in countries that exploit their workers, from venerating relics to using the organs of murder victims. When we can avoid such action, we should, but sometimes it is moral to take advantage of the evil deeds of the past.

Some think it is not moral to do so in the case of vaccines from aborted fetal cell lines. They believe the benefits are out of proportion to the disregard for human fetal life involved in the use of such vaccines.

The strongest statement against the use of vaccines by Bishops Athanasius Schneider and Joseph Strickland et alii comes closest to that statement. Their statement does not explicitly dispute that cooperation with the use of currently available COVID-19 vaccines is very remote; rather, it insists that the remoteness of cooperation is irrelevant. Here is the crux of their statement:

“The theological principle of material cooperation is certainly valid and can be applied to a whole series of cases (for example in the payment of taxes, in the use of products obtained from slave labor, and so on). However, this principle can hardly be applied to the case of vaccines obtained from fetal cell lines, because those who knowingly and voluntarily receive such vaccines enter a sort of, albeit very remote, link with the process of the abortion industry. The crime of abortion is so monstrous that any kind of concatenation with this crime, even if very remote, is immoral and cannot be accepted under any circumstances by a Catholic once he is fully aware of it. Those who use these vaccines must realize that their body is benefiting from the "fruits" (although steps removed through a series of chemical processes) of one of humanity's greatest crimes. "

In short, they claim that the use of vaccines involves a "concatenation, albeit a very remote one, with the process of the abortion industry" which makes it immoral since it would benefit from the fruits "of one of humanity's greatest crimes ".

I agree with Bishops Schneider and Strickland that abortion is a special case as the abominable crime of abortion makes what should be the safest place on earth - a mother's womb - one of the most dangerous places. of the earth. Plus, it has such widespread acceptance that it's legal almost everywhere. The humanity of the unborn child, even if easily established scientifically, is not recognized either by law or by medicine. If morally unproblematic alternatives were available, anything made using cell lines obtained from aborted fetuses should be rejected to honor the inherent dignity of the aborted victim. The question remains: is it always and everywhere wrong for a person to take advantage of this advantage if no alternatives are available? In other words, it is an absolute moral that one can never receive the benefit,

Father Matthew Schneider lists 12 different cases - many of them as gruesome and horrifying as abortion - where cooperation with evil is less remote than cooperation with abortion in the context of COVID-19 vaccines. Emphasize that most of us live quite comfortably with those evils. In fact, the same cell lines used to develop COVID-19 vaccines have been used in many other vaccines and used for other medical purposes such as cancer. Church officials have made no statements against all these cases of cooperation with evil. Claiming, as some pro-life leaders have done, that receiving vaccines that depend on cell lines of aborted fetuses is inherently immoral,

I believe that if vaccines are as effective and safe as touted, the benefits will be huge and proportionate: lives will be saved, the economy could recover and we could go back to our normal lives. These are very significant benefits that likely balance any connection vaccines have with abortion, especially if we escalate our objections to abortion and the use of cell lines from abortion.

Bishop Strickland has continued to speak out against the link between vaccines and abortion, something that urges the Vatican statement, but few Church leaders do. However, he acknowledges that others may discern they should use vaccines:

“I will not accept a vaccine whose existence depends on the abortion of a child, but I realize that others may discern the need for immunization in these extraordinarily difficult times. We MUST express a strong united cry to companies to STOP exploiting these children for research! Not anymore!"

Yet while it is morally lawful to use vaccines according to some principles, hasn't our willingness to use them undermined our opposition to abortion? Are we not approving abortion if we are willing to use products developed through cell lines from aborted fetuses?

The Vatican statement insists: "The lawful use of such vaccines does not and must not in any way imply that there is a moral endorsement of the use of cell lines from aborted fetuses." In support of this assertion, Dignitas Personae, n. 35:

“When the illicit action is endorsed by the laws governing health care and scientific research, it is necessary to distance ourselves from the evil aspects of that system in order not to give the impression of a certain tolerance or tacit acceptance of gravely unjust actions. Any appearance of acceptance would in fact contribute to the growing indifference, if not approval, of such actions in certain medical and political circles ”.

The problem is, of course, that despite our statements to the contrary, it seems impossible to avoid giving "the impression of a certain tolerance or tacit acceptance of the grossly unjust action of abortion". In this regard, more leadership from our bishops is much needed to clarify the opposition of the Church - such as full-page ads in major newspapers, the use of social media to protest the use of cell lines of aborted fetuses in developing medical treatments, and directing a letter campaign to pharmaceutical companies and lawmakers. There is much that can and must be done.

This seems to be the uncomfortable situation we find ourselves in:

1) The ecclesiastical authorities who use the principles of traditional moral theology instruct us that it is moral to use current COVID-19 vaccines and that it would be in the service of the common good to do so.

2) They tell us that we can mitigate the false impression that our use of vaccines makes our objections known… but they don't do much in this regard. And, frankly, this is outrageous and indeed one of the factors that leads some other leaders and some pro-lives to want to reject any use of vaccines.

3) Other Church leaders - whom many of us have come to respect as prophetic voices - urge us not to use vaccines as a way to protest the millions of unborn children killed each year around the world.

Since receiving the current vaccine is not inherently immoral, I believe that frontline workers, such as health care workers, and those who are at high risk of dying from the virus would be perfectly justified in receiving the vaccines and likely also have a obligation to do so. At the same time, they must find a way to make it clear that it is imperative that cell lines not originating from aborted fetuses be developed for use in medical research. A public campaign by health professionals explaining why they are willing to use vaccines, but also stressing the need for ethically produced vaccines, would be very powerful.

Those who have a very low chance of dying from COVID-19 (i.e. virtually everyone under 60 or so, without the underlying risk factors identified by the medical community) should seriously consider not getting it right now. But they should be careful not to give the impression that receiving the vaccine is morally wrong in all cases and they should take all other due precautions to ensure that they do not contribute to the spread of the virus. They should explain that while they would very much like to receive a vaccine that protects themselves and others, they don't believe the risk is high. Above all, in conscience they believe that there is also a need to bear witness to the humanity of the unborn whose value is too often considered negligible in our world, lives for which some sacrifice should be made.

We should all hope and pray that soon, very soon, undeveloped vaccines from cell lines of aborted fetuses will be available and that soon, very soon abortion becomes a thing of the past.