Opinion
Featured Image
 shutterstock.com

Editor’s note: The following essay comes from a priest well known to LifeSiteNews. Prudence requires the author to remain anonymous. We hope this anonymity will help people focus on the ideas being presented rather the person presenting them.

February 18, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – As headlines sound that “nobody is safe until everyone is vaccinated” and that “it is an ethical obligation” to receive this new “vaccine,” many ethical questions are presented to our consciences. The decision we make concerning this “vaccine” may profoundly and permanently touch our lives, and must be prudently and calmly considered.

Prudence is a moral virtue which gives us the correct knowledge of things to be done in particular cases. It resides in the practical intellect and gives the habitual disposition to know what is good and evil in the matter at hand. Prudence is the queen of the moral virtues and must govern all of our human acts.

In order to make a prudential decision one must be aware of the past, understand the current situation, and have a concern for the future. The history of vaccinations is very controversial so we will merely lay out a few historical facts, which may help us consider the current situation.

We will look briefly at the history of the vaccine, where it was discovered that immunity from Smallpox was present in those previously exposed to cowpox. The term vaccine is derived from the Latin word Vacca, which means cow. In 1853 in Leicester, England, Smallpox vaccines were mandatory[1]. Men were imprisoned if they could not pay the fines incurred for refusing to have their children vaccinated.[2] In 1871, after years of compulsory vaccination and a 110% vaccination rate, Leicester was struck with a severe outbreak of Smallpox. The initial reaction of the government was to administer more doses of the vaccine and give stricter fines for refusal to receive it. At that time, about 30% of the exposed population died – similar to the bubonic plague and the Spanish Flu in 1918 – which would make it more necessary to comply to a government mandate versus COVID-19's 0.2% fatality rate which is comparable to our yearly flu.

People protested against this. Thanks to this political pressure, it was agreed that vaccination was no longer going to be forced upon the population. The result was quite different than what was predicted. Though officials presumed that the people of Leicester were risking the health of the world, and were sure to cause an outbreak of disease that would set the planet on fire, nothing of the like actually happened. In fact, the graphs of the disease rates and the death rates went down precipitously after the vaccinations were stopped.[3]

Dr. Thomas Mack M.D., M.P.H., who is an expert in Smallpox, argued to the CDC that Smallpox was not ended by the vaccine but by economic developments. His view was published by the New England Journal of Medicine as “A Different View of Smallpox and Vaccination.” [4]

In regards to current events, the World Health Organization declared a Global Pandemic on March 11, 2020.  The survival rate for this pandemic is between 94.6% and 99.997%[5] depending on one’s age and health. In the wake of this declared pandemic, the world has been locked-down for one year and a “vaccine” was proposed as the only way “to get back to normal.” In order to end the lockdowns, billions of dollars were invested to “warp-speed” new COVID-19 vaccines.

After a year-long rollercoaster of fatiguing lockdowns, this new treatment is now available, but we are now told that even after one gets the vaccine, he still cannot go back to normal. In fact, we are now being told that this vaccine does not stop infection or transmission.[6] We are also told that this virus is mutating and you will need regular boosters. This makes us wonder if this new treatment even qualifies as a vaccine in the traditional sense. It also provokes a legitimate question. Why take it?

This brings us to our first prudential consideration related to “informed consent.” We must weigh the proportion between the risk and the benefit. We do this on a daily basis in all of our actions from crossing the street to white-water rafting. In most daily activities this analysis is habitual and con-natural, but in other cases we need to step back and calmly reflect on the moral principles and facts.

In regards to the benefits, there may be some short term benefits in taking the novel treatment. Bowing to political pressure may facilitate travel and work, but at what cost?

In regards to the risk, here are some facts which should be heavily considered in order to determine the morality of this treatment.

  1. “Operation Warp Speed” produced this treatment in less than one year. Animal trials were skipped and no long-term studies could be done in such a short time. Conventional medicine and traditional vaccines are tested for years before going to market to ensure their safety and efficacy. [7]
  2. In the short term studies there has been an alarming number of adverse reactions. Since the “vaccine” has been rolled out, many untimely deaths have ensued.[8] These deaths need to be investigated by organizations not invested in the “vaccine.” 
  3. Doctors and researchers have testified that in spite of years of research, a vaccine for a coronavirus was never successfully developed.  In the animal studies conducted in the past, animals were sterilized by the “vaccine.” Additionally, the “vaccine” often acted as a pathological primer, so that when the vaccinated animal was exposed to the live virus, its body overreacted and the animal died. [9] If this happens with the new COVID-19 “vaccine” it could cause irreparable harm to a great part of the population. The British Government has warned that the vaccine may cause fertility problems.[10]
  4. In addition, like all vaccines since 1986, vaccine companies are in no way liable if you are injured by this vaccine. Additionally, since this treatment is only approved for emergency use, not only are the vaccine companies not liable, but even the U.S. Government Vaccine Courts,[11] which have paid out billions of dollars in 30 years, are exempt from liability. The public’s only recourse will be the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program, which has rejected 90% of vaccine-injury claims over the past decade.[12] If the vaccine is safe, and injuries are rare, why the need to shield the vaccine companies from the consequences of their products?

These few considerations make it very clear that there is no proportion between risk and benefit. In fact, the risks far outweigh the benefits and, without some extenuating and subjective reasons, one must not take this vaccine. If one thinks that there is proportionate cause in his particular case, it would be a question to address with his spiritual director and trusted medical advisor.

Another consideration that must be made is that some of these vaccines are tainted by abortion, either in the process of manufacturing or in their testing. We must hold as sacred the principles of Moral Theology which allow material cooperation in the sin of another for a proportionate cause. For a proportionate cause to exist in accepting a tainted vaccine, it must be safe, effective, and necessary. The dangers of the disease must be significant and the tainted vaccine must be the only prudential option. If other options are available they must be used instead of the tainted vaccine.

We must note that the more proximate the cooperation in the evil, the more serious of a reason is needed to actually cooperate in that evil. As stated above, we are dealing with a virus which 94.6% to 99.997% of people survive. Additionally, there are many very promising treatments being suppressed[13], which do not have the same uncertainties and risks of this treatment, and are not tainted by the crime of abortion. In such a case, a Catholic, who needs treatment, must first seek non-tainted and properly tested treatments.

In regards to the relation between abortion and vaccines, it should be noted that many abortions had to be performed to successfully develop each fetal cell line. Take, for example, the term/name “HEK-293”[14]. HEK stands for Human Embryonic Kidney, and 293 for the number of samples that had to be taken to get a viable line. These samples had to be taken very soon after the abortion[15]. It is unknown how many abortions had to be performed to start this line[16] (or any tainted line) but we do know the relationship between medical-research companies and abortion clinics is live-and-well and, even today, live births are provoked as companies harvest fresh organs for the sake of “medical research.”[17] This process is very horrifying to people of faith who should—to the extent possible— seek religious exemptions from such tainted vaccines. This position is supported by the congregation of Faith (CDF). 

The Congregation of the Faith on December 21, 2020 stated in paragraph 5 of “Note on the morality of using some anti-Covid-19 vaccines”:

“…. 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….”

With this being said, the taking of a tainted vaccine is in no way formal cooperation in the sin of abortion as long as the recipient does not share in the evil intent of the abortionist and research companies. The taking of the vaccine is a human act distinct from the crime of abortion and from the sinful act of harvesting and developing the cells of electively aborted children. If a person were asked to blaspheme or formally partake in an idolatrous rite in the act of taking this vaccine, he would then be obligated to refuse even to the point of martyrdom.

With this being said it is clear that we have even more reason to refuse the COVID-19 vaccine/treatments which are tainted by abortion than the vaccines/treatments which are not abortion-tainted. If one thinks that there is proportionate cause to take a tainted vaccine he must first consult his confessor. We should also ask our clergy to use their influence to stop this horrible practice of using aborted babies for medical research.

When considering mandatory vaccination, it must be noted that the end of the State is the Common Good of the citizens. Health is an integral part of the Common Good and on this account the State does have a duty to make provisions for the health of the community. However, the State cannot force her citizens to take a shot, which they have reason to believe is not moral, safe, or effective. We reiterate here the statement from the CDF on this topic: “practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary.”

We will not attempt to resolve the over-a-century long battle as to whether the State could theoretically mandate such a medical procedure. The theory can be defended to the extent that it is abundantly clear that a certain therapy is necessary for the Common Good, and is also safe and effective. In the concrete, we do not think these conditions have ever been met, and it is abundantly clear that this experimental treatment/vaccine cannot be morally obligatory since there is no evidence that it is necessary and there is no proof that it is safe and effective. In addition to not being proven safe and effective, some of these treatments are tainted by abortion, which increases our aversion to them.[18] In such a condition, any law mandating these vaccines would be an unjust law. We must protest profusely to the doctor and to the government if ever mandated by whatever authority.

Aleksander Solzhenitsyn taught us that lies are perpetuated by fear and force.  The world has been living in fear and under totalitarian force for nearly one year and all promises from “two weeks to flatten the curve” to “no going back to normal until all are vaccinated” have proven to be lies. The majority of people have continually complied with these totalitarian measures, which have closed our churches, deprived countless souls of the Sacraments, and left many souls to die without the Last Rites. Are we not all in danger — due to force or fear — of irrevocably participating in the lie? If we participate in the lie even to the point of accepting this untested and tainted vaccine where will it all end? What kind of future will we leave to the next generation?

As we learned from the protests in Leicester, England, strength is in transparency and in numbers. The more people refuse to take this new experimental therapy, the sooner we can hope that this health dictatorship will lose its control over our lives.

We know that this is above all a spiritual battle. The whole world is the stage upon which is fought the battle between the serpent and the Virgin. Let us take our rosaries and beg our Mother to protect us from these horrible evils. Let us beg her to give the Pope the grace to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. As we know from the message at Fatima, there will be no peace until her request is properly fulfilled. 


[7] Dr. William Wodarg and Dr. Michael Yeadon put out a petition in early December to call off all SARS-CoV-2 vaccine studies until a study design was put in place to address concerns about the vaccine and the inadequate study design behind it. The lack of testing the drug on animals, the lack of time to study the long-term effects, the accentuated process of an exaggerated immune reaction to a real or wide virus in a process known as antibody-dependent amplification, and the polyethylene glycol in the vaccine, a substance to which 70% of people have allergic and possibly fatal reactions, are just some of the concerns under consideration.

[12] Anyone suffering from a serious injury will have little legal recourse because they will be directed to the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program which has rejected 90% of vaccine-injury claims over the past decade.

[13] https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/us-frontline-doctors-expose-criminal-campaign-by-tech-giants-govt-agencies-to-block-covid-cure

Comments

Commenting Guidelines

LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.