Do COVID-19 vaccinations have “body parts” from aborted babies?
This is a question we’ve been receiving frequently. The answer is “No,” none of the vaccines contain any physical material taken directly from an aborted baby. Rather, those vaccines with some association with abortion use cells derived from aborted babies. This means specific types of cells from an aborted baby have been cultured (i.e., “grown”) in a laboratory, most since the 1970’s or 1980’s.
From a physical standpoint, this is different than something like, for example, a bone marrow transplant. In that case, it is the actual cells from the donor that are physically injected into the recipient’s blood stream.
In the case of COVID-19 vaccines it is, however, true that those cells being grown in culture are morally linked to that aborted baby. It is this fact that is at issue in the discussions currently taking place and is addressed in our statement on this issue.
Click here for more COIVD-19 vaccine information. Please also feel free to contact us with any questions you may have, we always happy to hear from you.
This looks to be a very informative and practically useful online seminar. Please consider taking part, registration is free. Please also spread the word to colleague and friends!
The Holy Father, through the CDF, and our Bishops (along with others) have been clear that while we are able to accept the currently-available COVID-19 vaccines in good conscience, we are also obligated to both avoid scandal and advocate for the development of vaccines that are developed in morally acceptable ways. The advocacy can take many forms, including…
Thanking companies that are developing morally acceptable vaccines including Sanofi Pasture (Human Life Action provides a convenient contact template for Sanofi specifically)
Urging companies to are almost there to switch to a fully morally acceptable vaccine development process. You can contact Pfizer here and Moderna here.
Charitably admonishing companies that are notalmost there (i.e., developing very morally problematic vaccines) to change course. AstraZeneca is the company closest to getting a severely morally problematic vaccine approved and can be contacted here.
Just today the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has published a document entitled “Note on the morality of using some anti-COVID-19 vaccines.” This provides important clarification on the stance of the Catholic Church. We, without question, accept the CDF’s guidance and if there is anything in our statement below that appears to be in contradiction with the CDF’s document, it is our error.
_____
Prepared by members of the Catholic Finger Lakes Guild of the Diocese of Rochester, NY December, 2020
COVID-19 Vaccines Associated with Abortion: A Moral Dilemma
The Church’s position that abortion is a grave moral evil has been consistent since the 1st century and is definitive.[1] Since some COVID-19 vaccines use abortion-derived fetal cell lines in one or more aspects of their production, their use requires careful ethical reflection.[2] On the one hand, such vaccines can do much good in protecting the health of persons and populations, while on the other hand, they are linked to an act that intentionally and unjustly ended the life of a human being. Herein lies the moral dilemma.
COVID-19 Vaccines: There are Ethical Differences Among Them!
It is important that Catholics understand that of the numerous COVID-19 vaccines currently in development world-wide, there is great variation in their degree of use of abortion-derived fetal cell lines, varying from zero use to extensive use. The National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC) identifies three categories of COVID-19 vaccines, ranging from a Category 1 Vaccine which uses no morally problematic cell lines and thus poses no ethical problem, to a Category 3 Vaccine, which uses the cell lines in one or more aspects of production, including the manufacturing process which is the most ethically problematic. Category 2 vaccines use the cell lines in an incidental part of the development process such as laboratory testing and so are minimally problematic. Table 1 describes these categories in more detail.
In December 2020, two COVID-19 vaccine candidates – Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna – received emergency use authorization from the FDA through Operation Warp Speed protocols. Information provided by the Charlotte Lozier Institute classified both vaccines as Category 2 (minimally problematic). The six other Operation Warp Speed vaccine candidates either meet Category 3 (considerably problematic) criteria, or don’t have enough public information to be categorized. It should be noted that these and other COVID-19 vaccine candidates may be approved and become available to the public in the future. For this reason:
When there is a choice amongst COVID-19 vaccines, Catholics should specifically ask for, and seek out, the least morally problematic vaccine.
Deciding: Help from the Magisterium
The Magisterium of the Catholic Church offers guidance to Catholics who are pondering whether to receive morally problematic vaccines. In essence, while the Church firmly views a person’s right to exercise his personal freedom as a requirement of ensuring human dignity, it is moderated by a responsibility to use that freedom to promote the common good and moral order.[3] The following Church statements provide valuable considerations in this matter:
* The 2008 document Dignitas Personae (Section 35) allows for the use of morally problematic vaccines for grave reasons such as danger to one’s health, clarifying that “…grave reasons may be morally proportionate to justify the use of such ‘biological material.’”
* A 2005 letter from the Pontifical Academy of Life supported the right to abstain from receiving morally problematic vaccines, but did not support an unconditional right to do so when the disease posed a serious threat and the vaccine was sufficiently effective.
* In a 2015 statement, Conscience Exemption for Vaccines based on Fetal Tissue from Abortions, the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops (USCCB) noted that a Catholic parent could seek an exemption for their children from morally problematic vaccinations when a conscience exemption was available and when doing so would not pose a serious risk to the population.
* Most recently, the USCCB reminded Catholics that they are ethically permitted to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, even if it is morally problematic, given the urgency of the pandemic, the lack of available vaccines, and the remote connection to the original abortion. They described the decision to vaccinate as an act of charity and love towards one’s neighbor and perhaps the most important feature of receiving such a vaccine.
While these Church statements do not obligate Catholics to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, they clearly favor doing so. However, out of respect for personal freedom and a person’s conscience formed by well-considered reasons, an individual’s decision to forego a COVID-19 vaccine should be respected.
The Church has conditionally stated that it is permissible, and even advisable to receive morally problematic vaccines when there are no alternatives and when there is substantial risk to one’s own health or to the health of others.
However, the Church deems that the use of such vaccines is not obligatory, out of respect for personal freedom and a person’s conscience formed by well-considered reasons.
Importance of Advocacy
The Church asks more of Catholics in this matter. It calls Catholics to actively advocate for the development of ethical vaccines, free from any association with abortion or other immoral acts. Catholics can bring pressure to bear on pharmaceutical companies, researchers, and governments to eliminate the use of unethical cell lines. Researchers at Catholic universities have an unique opportunity to take the lead in this endeavor, so that one need never choose between their conscience and health.
Catholics should actively advocate against the use of abortion-derived fetal cell lines in vaccine research, manufacturing, and testing, and encourage the use of ethical alternatives.
5. Catechism of the Catholic Church: See: Abortion (§2270), Freedom & Responsibility (§1731-38), Moral Conscience (§1776), Respect for Health (§2288), The Person and Society (§1878), Morality of Human Acts (§1749).
[2] Note: Although abortion-derived fetal cell lines are used to manufacture some of today’s vaccines, no new abortions are needed to obtain these cells. The cells in use today are descendants from the cells obtained from single elective abortions that took place in the 1960s and 1970s. No actual cells are contained in vaccines.
The Guild has been closely following the development, and now distribution, of vaccines for COVID-19. There has been much written on this topic and we are in particular very thankful to the USCCB for their recent guidance on this important topic.
We will be posting our detailed thoughts on all of this shortly. In the meantime, we would like to provide some resources that we hope will be helpful in thinking through this important issue.
If you have questions or would like more information please don’t hesitate to contact us.
We had a great turnout last night for our 2nd Virtual Journal Club! Thank you to everyone who joined us. The discussion was lively and very informative.
Here are some pics from the VJC!
Stay tuned, we’ll be announcing details for our next VJC soon!
•What Are Women Told When Requesting Family Planning Services at Clinics Associated with Catholic Hospitals? A Mystery Caller Study https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29024351/
The ironically- (and sadly-) named pro-suicide group “Compassion and Choices” is focusing their efforts on passing Physician Assisted Suicide legislation in a number of states, including New York. They will not rest, and so we must not either!
One great organization that will help keep you abreast of developments in the are is Patients Rights Action Fund. Check them out and consider donating.
Remember, those in favor of assisted suicide are tireless and committed to nothing short of open and free access to death on demand. In their own words…
Compassion and Choices Fall Magazine
We are committed to continuing and expanding these efforts. How will COVID-19 impact our ability to authorize medical aid in dying in more states in 2021? Increased competition from issues emerging as a result of COVID-19 and greater awareness of racial inequities will make it more challenging to get any law passed in the near term. However, the unfortunate reality is that large numbers of people have and continue to suffer lonely, isolated deaths. We have seen time and time again that when people experience firsthand the inhumanity of suffering at life’s end, our support solidifies, intensifies and grows.
This reality, along with the momentum we had coming into COVID-19 and a combined total of 50 years of experience successfully implementing medical aid in dying in 10 jurisdictions, leaves me feeling optimistic for the future. We can anticipate authorizing an average of one state per year, putting us on track to realize our strategic goal of ensuring that 50% of the population lives in a state where medical aid in dying is authorized and accessible by 2028. What states look the most promising for advancing medical aid in dying? Massachusetts lawmakers, for the first time ever, advanced their medical aid-in-dying legislation during COVID-19, voting it out of the Joint Committee on Health Care Financing. We are hopeful the state will authorize medical aid in dying in the near term. In terms of the rest of the country, I will be able to answer this question with more certainty on November 3, just after the election. I anticipate lawmakers sponsoring bills in approximately 20 states where we are organizing and working alongside coalitions to move legislation forward. The political climate and grassroots support are increasingly promising in nine of those states — Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Nevada and Virginia.
Last year, Oregon passed legislation to improve the existing bill. Do you anticipate other states following suit? Absolutely. We have conclusive data that the existing law is unnecessarily burdensome, and we will work with lawmakers in some states to begin to address this reality. Fundamental improvements include 1) the elimination of or ability for doctors to waive the waiting period for patients actively dying; 2) the inclusion of nurse practitioners and/or physician assistants as allowable practitioners; 3) a requirement that providers disclose their medical aid-in-dying policies, allowing patients to make informed decisions about where to access the care they want.
The CMA is offering a 25% discount for new members, which is a great deal! You can sign up here. (When they ask, you can tell them that our Guild President, Thomas Carroll, referred you! =))
We are also always happy to welcome new (and returning!) members to our local Guild as well! Don’t hesitate to contact us with any questions…or you can just sign up!
