21 minute read
Frequently asked questions regarding the moral liceity of the Covid-19 vaccines
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Advertisement
byJOHN SMEATON and MARIA MADISE
The debate regarding vaccines against the coronavirus has become more heated rather than cooled down since Calx Mariae published an initial article on the topic (Autumn, no. 11).
Prominent figures in this debate have taken the view that it is morally illicit under any circumstances for a Catholic to have recourse to the vaccines in light of the fact that virtually all currently available options have been developed using cell lines from aborted children at some point in the course of production or testing. However, in their understandable concern to redress the appalling weakness of so many bishops and bishops’ conferences throughout the world in forming the consciences of the faithful on abortion, they appear to have chosen the wrong target and, thereby, they risk increasing confusion and distress amongst the faithful. The horror of abortion, which rightly informs discussion on the evil of abortion, does not add weight to the point they seek to make in the current debate regarding the moral licitness of receiving abortion-tainted vaccination.
On the other hand, pro-life organisations all over the world are being contacted by distressed supporters, not least the elderly, who have taken the vaccine and are now worried that they have committed a mortal sin because of what they have heard from some trusted pro-life source or other. Many others are being dismissed in their families and communities as not fully pro-life or fully Catholic for considering the vaccines morally licit. Therefore, in a few months, the moral issue of the vaccination against the coronavirus has shifted from a discussion of an ethical question to a tragic dividing line between people who oppose abortion, culminating in a call for a new pro-life movement which would focus on the issue of vaccines.
However, the only binding authority for the faithful in this matter is the Church, and our primary concern must be to seek the truth constantly in the light of her teaching. Whether we find ourselves in a situation where vaccination is a hypothetical option, or whether it is a recommendation or even
virtually an obligation, we must ensure that we are well informed on the moral principles involved so that we are able to navigate this minefield in which we find ourselves threatened by irruptions amongst our families and between the best of friends. We must make proper distinctions between the various political, medical, scientific and moral questions attached to this issue. And we must be able to remain focused when talking about the moral liceity of the vaccines against the coronavirus without confusing such discussion with political or medical debates. Politics is changeable and it is not possible to give people medical advice that can be applied universally; but we can and must study the ethical issues at stake which do indeed apply universally.
To date, the most comprehensive and easily accessible study of the moral question that we are aware of is On the Moral Liceity of the Vaccination, written by Professor Roberto de Mattei.1 Also available online, this is a very helpful tool for deepening one’s understanding of this contentious issue. Hopefully other substantial contributions will be published soon. In this short article, however, we do not endeavour to give an exhaustive overview of the principles of moral theology involved, but only address some of the most frequently asked questions by ordinary pro-life people today concerning the moral liceity of the Covid vaccines.
What does the Church teach about the vaccines produced or tested with foetal cell lines? Catholic teaching is set out by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in Dignitatis Personae2 (re-affirmed by CDF in December 2020)3 and by the Pontifical Academy for Life’s (PAV) 2005 letter on this subject.4 Dignitatis Personae mostly deals with the culpability of those using foetal remains in scientific research.5 The PAV’s letter considers the principles for assessing co-operation with evil, in the case of the rubella vaccines, which are also produced with foetal cell lines.
These documents assert that vaccines produced with foetal cell lines are not morally illicit to take for a proportionately serious reason if there are no realistic alternatives. They also make an important distinction between the evil in procuring and exploiting foetal cell lines on the one hand and using the resulting products on the other.
A person who takes the vaccine produced with illicitly created cell lines is not responsible for, or defiled by, the evil done by others in the past. Practically speaking, it is impossible to contribute to the performing of the evil action, because it has been completed. In this sense, it is irrelevant whether the evil action happened recently or decades ago; albeit we are emotionally more sensitive to evil that has taken place recently, we are equally unable to participate in it. Murdering unborn children, deriving their cells, developing and using the cell lines in medical research and production, selling therapeutics which have been produced with foetal cell lines, and, in the end, receiving the vaccine are actions linked chronologically to one another, but the moral assessment of each of these actions remains distinct at every stage. In short, the Church teaches that receiving vaccines developed with foetal cell lines is permissible if there is a proportionately serious reason for doing so (and the existence of a pandemic is a serious reason), if there is no realistic alternative (that is, if there are no ethically irreproachable vaccines available) and if one’s moral objection to using the remains of aborted children in the production of the vaccine is made evident (according to one’s capacity to do so). One could also put it this way: Catholic teaching requires the faithful to conscientiously object to the use of foetal remains by the pharmaceutical industry and to militate for an end to the practice but it allows the use of the resulting therapeutics when no alternative is available. The bottom line is that the vaccines of illicit origin are not illicit per se, that is, they are not intrinsically evil. If they were, no circumstances could make their use permissible. Circumstances and reasons make the reception of the vaccines more or less justified, but they do not render it an intrinsic evil. One might ask what is the weight of an individual moral discernment in this question? We must remember in this connection that there are no neutral human acts: all human acts are either good or bad, to a greater or lesser degree according to the circumstances. However, we must not only
seek to avoid sin and do what is good; we should also seek perfection. Striving for perfection follows from a lawful act but it is different for each of us, according to the concrete circumstances in the light of God’s will.
Can this teaching be really trusted? Since the documents in question were only issued within the last fifteen years and given how much error and ambiguity are propagated by today’s Vatican, should we not consider them to represent unsound modern teaching rather than the motherly wisdom of the perennial Church? It must always be borne in mind that teachings are considered ambiguous and erroneous in cases where they are in a clear contradiction with previous authoritative teaching since the Church cannot contradict herself. However, in other cases, such as the advice on vaccination, there is no conflict. On the contrary, this guidance is drawn from moral principles set out by St Thomas, and especially by St Alphonsus Liguori, a doctor of the Church known for his towering contributions to moral theology, as well as moralists after him. Of course, they could not have discussed the question of vaccines nor the use of foetal cell lines in their development, things which did not exist at the time, but they established the principles for assessing co-operation with and benefitting from evil which must be applied to these issues.
We must also consider the teaching of St Paul with regard to the moral question that divided the Christians of Corinth: namely, whether it is permissible to eat meat of the animals that had been
ST ALPHONSUS LIGUORI
sacrificed to idols. This was a question pertaining to the first commandment, which is even greater than the violation of the fifth. In his first letter to the Corinthians, St Paul assured the faithful that eating meat sacrificed to idols is not sinful. (1 Cor 8:4-13) The 2005 statement of the Pontifical Academy for Life did not invent the teaching but considered and confirmed the application of general principles to a concrete matter. With regard to the principle of remote material co-operation, it is impossible to exclude abortion from the evils where this moral principle applies. Where would this leave pro-life medics who have to make countless courageous decisions in their day to day working lives, in order to avoid formal co-operation in abortion? And by rejecting any benefits from past evils, where would it leave every person, every family, around the world,
“In her teaching, the Church establishes principles, not circumstances. If the vaccines were evil on principle because of their abortion-tainted nature, no circumstance would render them licit. The circumstances require discernment by individuals and families. They are best placed to decide whether the level of risk is sufficient to justify the use of these pharmaceuticals.”
taking ordinary everyday medications which are also linked to the use of cell lines derived from aborted children? (For details, see the next question.)
If we were to reject the principles in question, it would have huge implications for the life of the Church today, when it is hardly possible for Catholics to buy, use or participate in anything without some degree of association with grave evil. Even within the Church the level of abuse of the most sacred things has reached the point where many Catholics could find it difficult to receive the sacraments if they were to be held responsible for what took place outside of their receiving the sacrament validly and with a good intention. If, on the other hand, we were to say that abortion is a crime so great that the general principles of moral law do not apply to it, we would be taking abortion out of the moral law, thus making it difficult to condemn abortion based on the principles of this law. What is the scale of the use of foetal cell lines? Since 1977, HEK-293 has become the second most commonly used human cell line in the development of drugs, therapeutics and vaccines.6 Examples include Ibuprofen (anti-inflammatory painkiller)7; Amoxicillin, Penicillin (commonest of the antibiotics)8; Insulins (for diabetes)9; Halaven, Methotrexate, Capecitabine, Gemcitabine, Carboplatin, Vinorelbine, Doxorubicin (chemotherapeutic agents for cancer)10; Desflurane, Isoflurane, Sevoflurane (anaesthetic agents)11, and this list is very vast, without even mentioning many commonly used non-medical products. Also, the medications used to treat Covid-19 in its early stages (such as Hydroxychloroquine, Regeneron and Ivermectin), are connected to the use of HEK-293 cell line.12 Later other cell lines were developed that are also widely used in the pharmaceutical industry, including the most easily available Covid vaccines.
Of course, the fact that something is widespread does not make it acceptable or licit. If these and many other medications were intrinsically evil, every Catholic should stop using them immediately under pain of sin, no matter how widespread they have become or necessary they are deemed for one’s health. But despite the illicit elements in their production, the medications themselves are not evil; on the contrary, they are good. The fact that these cell lines are ubiquitous only helps underline how the principles used to discern the liceity of any of these therapeutics must be capable of being applied consistently to all.
The issue of using foetal cell lines in medical research and production, therefore, is beyond enormous, since these cells are the workhorse of the pharmaceutical industry. Healthcare is an essential
part of the economy and medication is an essential part of healthcare. Scandalously, the production of medication is currently relying heavily on these cell lines and thus we can say that the economy is currently relying heavily on these cell lines. Whilst there is no apparent solution to the problem, our hope always comes from knowledge of the truth. We must not lose sight that the fundamental evil to fight is abortion which makes the production of abortion-tainted vaccines and medications possible in the first place. However, tragically, abortion is rarely opposed with appropriate vigor. Thankfully, because the foetal cell line is not an indispensable component in the vaccine per se, there is a growing list of Covid vaccine candidates that do not use foetal cell lines.13
Should it still not be recommended that one avoids these vaccines, on the basis that they are unnecessary and could be dangerous? What is necessary for achieving a goal is not always morally licit and what is morally licit is not always necessary. An infertile couple may consider IVF necessary to bear children, but it is morally impermissible. A definite Catholic principle is that the ends cannot justify the means. On the other hand, it might be morally permissible to use vaccines that have been derived from foetal cell lines, but they may not be universally necessary. Whether or not the vaccination is really necessary or could cause dangerous side effects are different matters from its moral liceity. It can be validly argued that vaccines against the coronavirus have not yet been sufficiently tested and that the long-term side effects and their efficiency against the various variants of the virus are unknown. However, none of these legitimate questions can be answered by doctrine or moral theology, but only by medical science. Also, while the doctrinal and moral questions can be answered today, with the help of existing and proven principles, it may take years to definitively answer the questions regarding medical science because we are dealing with new therapeutics. Therefore, one can easily understand all those who, while considering it lawful, decide not to receive the vaccine. However, this is a prudential judgment each person can make not a commandment of the Church.
In her teaching, the Church establishes principles, not circumstances. If the vaccines were evil on principle because of their abortion-tainted nature, no circumstance would render them licit. If it is licit in certain circumstances, it is not evil by nature. The circumstances require discernment by individuals and families. They are best placed to decide whether the level of risk is sufficient to justify the use of these pharmaceuticals. On the other hand, to respect the discernment of individuals and families, vaccination must remain voluntary. In short, whereas concerns about the abortion-tainted nature of the vaccine might form part of a personal prudential judgement not to receive it, it is divisive and leading the faithful astray to promote this position as, objectively, the correct understanding of the teaching of the Church and binding on all.
But what is the value of focusing on the moral issue when so many problems with these vaccines have been reported? And is it not very theoretical, minimalist, and defeatist to emphasise the moral liceity? To defend the truth is never defeatist. Today especially, when there is so much confusion about authentic and false teaching, including even the most basic questions, we must defend the integrity of the Church’s doctrine, the structure of her moral tradition. This structure is being eroded by mixing up the issues – the production of drugs and the using of drugs, equating abortion with benefiting from drugs of illicit origin, untenable distinctions between abortion-tainted vaccines and other drugs which are also abortion-tainted, and so on.
Ideas have real consequences, even if they are not evident immediately. Great revolutions have always started from ideas which sometimes take many years to materialise but are no less dangerous because of that. Harm done to the faith and morals is more serious than harm to the health and body, because this harm is done to the eternal health of the soul.
Our mission must be to keep people faithful to the Church’s teaching which is the only hope to defeat abortion. We cannot fight abortion by undermining Catholic moral tradition thus weakening Catholics’ confidence in the Church’s teaching both on related issues and generally.
The beautiful fabric of the Church’s teaching is ours to protect today as never before; not one thread can be pulled out without affecting its entire pattern, not even for what may seem more or better than she could offer or mistakenly more heroic. Defending the intactness of this fabric is especially important today when it is being wildly pulled and torn from every direction.
Do we need a new pro-life movement to tackle the vaccine issue? The most effective way to oppose the production of therapeutics by means of cell lines of aborted human foetal origin, is to fight abortion with ever greater commitment. The current debate has shown that, in the ranks of faithful Catholics, there is a lot of will and energy to fight. But it would be a terrible strategic mistake to channel this not against the real evil of abortion but against its side effects. Furthermore, calls for a new pro-life movement risk dividing the pro-life movement irreparably: Firstly, because they appear to represent those who uphold Catholic moral teaching in respect of abortion-tainted vaccines and other therapeutics as resigning themselves to the crimes of abortion and the exploitation of the body parts of unborn children. And secondly, because they place the responsibility on those who have none. The Church wants her children to be faithful, and also heroically faithful, but she does not place demands on them which are impossible to fulfil. And we must be careful not to place burdens on people that are not required by the Church. There is a duty not to “bind heavy and insupportable burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders”, the warning of Our Lord in the Gospel (Mt 23:4). Instead of a new pro-life movement, we urgently need to call on church leaders to form the consciences of the faithful on Catholic teaching on the sanctity of human life. Their failure to do so has led our health services worldwide to be dominated by the culture of death. The bishops must fight to make abortion illegal. New cell lines must not be initiated. Church leaders need to call on governments and industry to stop exploiting the unborn in producing medications and vaccines which everyone of us will almost certainly require at some stage in our lives. Splitting the Church and the pro-life movement, on the other hand, by promoting erroneous teaching on principles guiding the moral discernment of the faithful will only serve to delay appropriate action being taken by church leaders and could cost the lives of untold numbers of unborn children.
What then can be done? Many may believe that they are trapped in a hopeless situation by thinking mistakenly that they are gravely sinning for taking their daily medications or that they must refuse the vaccine against Covid at all costs. Alerting others to the teaching of the Church can save people’s faith and inspire them to fight abortion ever more strongly. By upholding and sharing Catholic teaching with your family, friends, colleagues, fellow parishioners, doctors and clergy, you can also efficiently make known your objections to the using of foetal remains in biomedical research which is a vital witness in today’s anti-Christian and anti-life culture.
Conclusion The legalisation of abortion has corrupted medical science as well as medical practice. Until the primary evil of legalised abortion is addressed, there is no compelling reason for the world to make the exploitation of the aborted child’s body for various purposes extinct.
The exploitation of unborn children is so widespread in scientific research that the magnitude of this problem and the complexity of its implications may seem overwhelming. It is extremely difficult, if it is even possible at all, to extricate legitimate research, therapies and pharmaceuticals from those that use foetal cell lines. In ending this practice, discernment is required “lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it”. (Mt 13:29) Nevertheless, the Catholic faithful and all men and women of good will should work on their own level and using the means available to them, calling on politicians and companies to stop such exploitation which deeply offends human dignity created in the image and likeness of God.
But above all, we must not dismiss the authentic teaching authority of the Church on the grounds that, sadly, there has been so much abuse of authority. The scandals that have been emerging from the Vatican in recent years and months, including shareholdings in pharmaceutical companies that produce abortion drugs, have not helped maintain trust in authority. However, the answer is not new morality, a new church, nor a new pro-life movement. This approach which appears absolutist is actually liberal in essence, because it allows each of us to set up our own moral authority. On the contrary, instead of a new morality that ultimately threatens us with even more doctrinal anarchy, we must, in this trying hour for the Church and for the world, unite evermore strongly in the perennial teaching of the Church. This is our way forward in a spirit of charity which grows from the love of the truth. Endnotes:
1. Roberto de Mattei, On the Moral Liceity of the Vaccination, Edizioni Fiducia, 2021. Available online at: https://libri.edizionifiducia.it/on-the-moral-liceity-of-the-vaccination/ 2. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dignitas Personae – Instruction on
Certain Bioethical Questions, 8 Sept 2008; https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20081208_dignitas-personae_en.html 3. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Note on the Morality of Using Some Anti-Covid-19 Vaccines, 21 December 2020; https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/ congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20201221_nota-vaccini-anticovid_en.html 4. Pontifical Academy for Life, Moral Reflections on Vaccines Prepared from Cells Derived from Aborted Human Foetuses, Rome, 9 June 2005; https://www.immunize.org/ talking-about-vaccines/vaticandocument.htm 5. Dignitatis Personae, no 35. 6. “Today, HEK-293 cells are frequently used in cell biology and biotechnology, second only to HeLa, the first human cell line.” This cell-line is derived from the Human Embryonic Kidney tissue of a baby girl aborted in the Netherlands in 1972 or 73. The number 293 indicates that it was the 293rd experiment [note that this is different from the number of abortions carried out for obtaining this cell-line] carried out by Dr Frank Graham, a Canadian working at the University of Leiden. HEK293 Cell Line, See: http://www.hek293.com/ 7. Rahim Ahmadi et al, “The Effect of Aspirin and Ibuprofen on the Proliferation of Cervical Cancer Cells (HeLa) Compared to Non-Cancerous Cells (HEK 293) in Cell Culture Medium” (2018), Qom Univ Med Sci J 12, 5 pp. 16-24. 8. Zhenjiang Yang et al, “Azithromycin Causes a Novel Proarrhythmic Syndrome” (2017) Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology, 10, p. 4. Dorothea Brüggemann, “Nanoporous Aluminium Oxide Membranes as Cell Interfaces” (2013), J
Nanomaterials, 2013. 9. A. S. Molsted Wanschera et al, “Production of functional human insulin-like growth factor binding proteins (IGFBPs) using recombinant expression in HEK293 cells” (2015), Protein Expression and Purification, 108, pp. 97-105. 10. Zengguang Xu et al, “The stimulatory activity of plasma in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer requires TLR-stimulating nucleic acid immunoglobulin complexes and discriminates responsiveness to chemotherapy” (2014), Cancer
Cell International, 14, p. 8. 11. Koichi Nishikawa et al, “The Actions of Sevoflurane and Desflurane on the γ-Aminobutyric Acid Receptor Type A: Effects of TM2 Mutations in the α and β Subunits” (2003), Anesthesiology, 99, pp. 678–84; Mahmud Arif Pavel et al, “Studies on the mechanism of general anesthesia” (2020), Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117, 24 | 13757-66. 12. Regeneron (monoclonal antibody drug cocktail to treat moderately serious COVID-19) - Noura S Abul-Husn et al, “A Protein-Truncating HSD17B13 Variant and Protection from Chronic Liver Disease” (2018), N Engl J Med 378, pp. 10961106. Ivermectin (anti-parasitic also drug used to treat COVID-19) – W Nörenberg et al, “Positive allosteric modulation by ivermectin of human but not murine P2X7 receptors” (2012), Brit J Pharma, 167, 1, pp. 48-66. Hydroxychloroquine (used to treat malaria, inflammatory diseases and COVID-19) – Chenghao Xu et al, “Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine Are Novel Inhibitors of Human Organic Anion Transporting Polypeptide 1A2” (2016), J Pharma Sci, 105, 2, pp. 884-90. 13. See for example, Lozier Institute, “Update: COVID-19 Vaccine Candidates and Abortion-Derived Cell Lines”, 3 March 2021; https://lozierinstitute.org/updatecovid-19-vaccine-candidates-and-abortion-derived-cell-lines/
