Skip to main content

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





    Comments

    Popular posts from this blog

    De Veritate - St. Thomas Aquinas - What is necessary to believe explicitly?

    I was recently introduced to a work of St. Thomas De Veritate ( Source ) in the course of an argument concerning the minimum content of explicit faith.  When I submitted the following quote as proof: Theological faith, that is, a supernatural faith in Revelation, is necessary, and this is an effect of grace (D 1789); nemini unquam sine ilIa contigit iustificatio (D 1793). As far as the content of this faith is concerned, according to Hebr. 11, 6, at least the existence of God and retribution in the other world must be firmly held, necessitate medii (by the necessity of means) with explicit faith. In regard to the Trinity and the Incarnation, implicit faith suffices. The supernatural faith necessary for justification is attained when God grants to the unbeliever by internal inspiration or external teaching a knowledge of the truths of Revelation, and actual grace to make the supernatural act of faith. Cf. De verite 14, I I.Ott - Fundamentals of Dogma p241 In response my opponent ...

    Comparision of the Tridentine, Cranmer and Novus Ordo Masses

    + JMJ I downloaded the comparison that was linked in the previous article on the mass (here) . ... a very good reference! P^3 From: Whispers of Restoration (available at this link) . CHARTING LITURGICAL CHANGE Comparing the 1962 Ordinary of the Roman Mass to changes made during the Anglican Schism; Compared in turn to changes adopted in the creation of Pope Paul VI’s Mass in 1969 The chart on the reverse is a concise comparison of certain ritual differences between three historical rites for the celebration of the Catholic Mass Vetus Ordo: “Old Order,” the Roman Rite of Mass as contained in the 1962 Missal, often referred to as the “Traditional Latin Mass.”The Ordinary of this Mass is that of Pope St. Pius V (1570) following the Council of Trent (1545-63), hence the occasional moniker “Tridentine Mass.” However, Trent only consolidated and codified the Roman Rite already in use at that time; its essential form dates to Pope St. Gregory the Great (+604), in whose time the R...

    Rome and the SSPX - Version 2026 Part 5b - How Did We Get Here??? ... A Continued Anlaysis using ChatGPT.

     + JMJ Part 5b How Did We Get Here??? So in the previous ChatGPT analysis the LLM ‘concluded’ that there was continuity in doctrine. So now we’re going to explore this element. There is some repetition but I don't have time right now to do a lot of editing.  I think instead we'll have a Part 5c where I try to pull it all together with some old fashioned human sense making. At the end point, I think the LLM collects an interesting if somewhat skewed perspective: The SSPX mapping hinges on this claim: That Vatican II affirms (at least implicitly) propositions that the Syllabus of Errors explicitly condemned. The broader Church response is: The same propositions are still rejected—but Vatican II is addressing different categories (political, pastoral, anthropological) rather than reversing doctrine. While the summary of the SSPX position seems close, that of the broader Church seems to be either an outright AI hallucination or a consensus point from the literature that it used...

    News Roundup: April 30, 2026

     + JMJ I just realised that I haven't posted the latest Roundup ... and there is a lot in the roundup as the media storm around the SSPX continues! I also just noticed this article: European Conservative: Why the SSPX Bishop Decision Matters Far Beyond Church Politics (link) .  P^3 === Popes Past Present and Future Papal News and Views Cardinal Fernandez maintains that Francis is not dead- metaphorically Pope Leo XIV Reopens Amoris Laetitia File | FSSPX News Pope Leo: “We Do Not Agree with the Formalized Blessing of …Homosexual Couples” - OnePeterFive RORATE CÆLI: How Pope Leo is Reshuffling the Curia: Musical Chairs and Power Games RORATE CÆLI: A Giant Leap: The meaning of Cardinal Eijk’s Pontifical High Mass and the Rebirth of Dutch Catholicism RORATE CÆLI: A Sign of Continuity with the Pre-Francis Papacy: Pope to Wash Feet of Twelve Priests RORATE CÆLI: Vatican Blocks Continuity of Procedure of Beatification and Canonization of Argentine Bishop -- no new Satanellis Pope Leo...

    Rome and the SSPX - Version 2026 Part 5 - How Did We Get Here???

     + JMJ This is the fifth in this series and I think it may require a part b to show the controversial documents and teachings of the Pope post V2. P^3 Part 5 How Did We Get Here??? Introduction My family became ‘Traditional’ in early 1980’s and I didn’t realise until years later how early we entered the Fray. So the SSPX was slightly over a decade old when we started going to Mass. That is a young organization, as someone said at the consecrations “Aren’t you a little young to be a bishop?”, the response was, “That is something that time will change.” 1970: SSPX founded with diocesan approval (Abp. Marcel Lefebvre) 1974–1976: Vatican II disputes escalate; Lefebvre suspended a divinis 1988: Illicit episcopal consecrations → excommunications declared 2000: SSPX Jubilee pilgrimage to Rome (signals openness to talks) 2009: Excommunications lifted by Pope Benedict XVI 2011–2012: Doctrinal talks with CDF collapse 2015–2017: SSPX granted faculties for confessi...