Making Moral Vaccine Decisions - Part A: Guiding Principles

 +

JMJ

Following Pope St. Pius X's example in writing Pascendi, I will start with plumbing the depths of  Catholic Moral Theology and Principles.

One element I learned is that I was wrong, St. Thomas Aquinas' principles of double effect are relevant and explicitly a part of the principles of Moral Theology.

The moral decision centers around the cooperation in the evil act that someone else commits. This cooperation is subject to some very important distinctions and factors

The first distinction is between formal and material cooperation. This is straightforward, in formal cooperation you share evil intention of the person who is committing the evil act. In material cooperation you are not. An important factor is that a sharing of the evil intention transforms even remote cooperation into a sinful act.

The next distinction is between immediate and mediate cooperation. Actual cooperation in the evil act is always sinful, even when forced.  Mediate cooperation is the enabling of the evil act, such as by providing poison to a murderer without knowing their intent.

Mediate cooperation has two sub-types: Proximate and Remote. In proximate cooperation, there is a moral / immediate connection between the support rendered and the sinful act. In remote cooperation no such moral / certain connection exists. 

Table 1: Moral Theology - Cooperation in Evil

In weighing these two types of cooperation the moral theology texts reference the principle of double effect (see Fig 1 and 2). This is best summed up as, the act by which you cooperate must be moral or indifferent, the good effect must be as directly or before the evil effect, the intention must be to create the good effect and the good effect is at least equivalent to the bad effect.

Fig 1 St. Thomas' Principle of Double Effect

 

 Factors that need to be considered (Prummer):

1. The greater the evil that is indirectly willed,
2. the closer the union between the act and its evil effect,
3. the greater the certainty that the evil effect will ensue,
4. the greater the agent's obligation by reason of his position to prevent the evil effect, so much the more serious must be his reason for permitting the evil effect. 

As can be deduced from the above, for remote cooperation it is easier to arrive a conclusion that cooperation is not sinful as by definition, there is greater distance between the act & effect (#2), the certainty the evil effect will ensue is less (#3).

To put this in the covid context: unless you are directly involved in the R&D, production and marketing of morally tainted vaccines, you are remotely cooperating in evil. This cooperation is bi-lateral since you would be benefiting from an sinful act (murder of defenseless, innocent baby) and contribute to the business case for promulgating the use of the tainted cell-lines as well as the creation of new cell-lines.

The evil that is indirectly willed is the historic death of the single baby whose cell-line was used to produce the vaccine. There is a causal chain from the abortion to the morally tainted vaccine injected into your arm. The future deaths and cell-lines are likewise uncertain.(#1)

Both the temporal distance and chain of events between the act of murder in the mid-20th century and the present vaccine is great (#2).  

There is no certainty that the evil effect will 'ensure' - meaning the death of more babies because of your cooperatoin.  Likewise, there is no retroactive effect, meaning the abortionist didn't foresee your support (#3)

Finally, if you are simply a recipient of the vaccine, the rigour of your reasons for obtaining the vaccine are reduced.(#4).

 I believe all conditions are present for the receipt of a morally tainted vaccine for COVID-19,assuming the absence of an untainted vaccine.

I would not make the same assessment for the Varicella (Chicken-Pox) vaccine.

 In spite of the feelings of well-intentioned Catholics to the contrary, having reviewed the manuals (see below), I have concluded that official conclusions reached by Church Theologians and SSPX are aligned with pre-conciliar principles.

P^3

 

Series Links

Making Moral Vaccine Decisions - Part A: Guiding Principles

Making Moral Vaccine Decisions - Part B: Situation

Making Moral Vaccine Decisions - Part C: Moral Issues

Making Moral Vaccine Decisions - Part D: Vaccine Safety and Efficacy

Making Moral Vaccine Decisions - Part E: Vaccines In Canada

Making Moral Vaccine Decisions - Part F: Our Obligations

Making Moral Vaccine Decisions - Part G: Conclusion and Resources

Research Map

Fig. 2: Research Map

Resources