Skip to main content

Making Moral Vaccine Decisions - Part K: Roberto de Mattei: Is the COVID vaccine morally licit for Catholics?

 +
JMJ

 There has been a lot of discussion on the morality of the COVID vaccines in cyber space. However, as my readers know, unprincipled arguments are generally FUD evoking. 

When FUD works, people make BAD decisions. This takes on a new dimension when the decisions are potentially life altering. 

So, having yet another rational confirmation of the morality of the vaccines is consoling.

P^3

Courtesy of Rorate-Caeli


[Translator's note: The following is a translation of a review by Veronica Rasponi that appeared on Corrispondenza Romana of Professor Roberto de Mattei’s just published book (in Italian)  called “On the Moral Liceity of the Vaccine”. As many Catholics who know and love the Catholic Tradition and the Traditional Mass know, Professor de Mattei is one of the most important leaders of the Traditional Movement not only in Italy but throughout Europe.  His conclusions are very important for those who are weighing a decision whether to receive one of the Covid-19 vaccines.  He concludes, after a rigorous discussion using the methodology of some of the greatest moral theologians of the Church, that the vaccine is morally licit.  In that conclusion he is in agreement with the recent statements of the Pontifical Academy for Life and of the Congregation of Doctrine and Faith. The review below offers highlights of what Professor de Mattei writes in his book. All the quotes are from de Mattei himself unless noted. - Father Richard Gennaro Cipolla]



***


Is the anti-Covid vaccine licit?  A response from Roberto de Mattei.

The anti-Covid vaccination is today at the center of a debate that is both political and medical, but often also in the sphere of morality. This debate is taking place in an atmosphere that is often emotional, thus distorting the terms of the question. It is timely, therefore, that Professor Roberto de Mattei has made a contribution to this debate with a study called "On the Moral Liceity of the Vaccine". This study is being presented as “a clear and thorough answer to those who consider the vaccine against Covid-19 illicit in itself.”

The problem is short is this: “from the view of both Catholic and natural morality, is it licit or not to be vaccinated against the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, given that the vaccines now available use cell lines originating from aborted fetuses”? In receiving these vaccines, or, if I am a medical doctor, in injecting these vaccines, am I making myself complicit with abortion, thereby committing a grave sin?

Professor de Mattei first of all distinguishes between the scientific and the moral problem.  To examine this crucial point, he calls to mind the principles on which moral theology is based, discussing the teaching of Saint Alphonsus Maria de’ Liguori and of the most trusted moral theologians of the nineteenth century, down to the Magisterium of John Paul II, in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor. On the basis of these premises. one must study the problem of cooperation with evil, applying this to the concrete case of the current vaccines using fetal cell lines.

There are basically two theses that deny the liceity of the anti-Covid vaccines.  The first thesis considers the vaccine illicit in terms of its relationship to the abortion industry; the second considers it illicit because it may be  a threat to one’s physical health.  Professor de Mattei confronts thoroughly both theses.  He also confronts other objections, reminding everyone of  his own sense of responsibility.

The position that Professor de Mattei takes is not that different from that of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith as expressed on September 8, 2008 and December 21 2020, but he distances himself from statements made by some prelates on December 12, 2020.  At the same time he distances himself forcefully from many positions that are diffused on the internet that have no basis either in science or in theology or in morality.

Quoting de Mattei:

“The Church is not a liquid society, but an institution that issues juridical and moral norms, to which one needs to adhere, as long as they do not enter into contradiction with the continuing Magisterium of the Church, with the teaching of the Popes, and with the doctrine of the Gospels.  A position that is proposed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith is not in itself infallible, but should be considered at the very least probable, or the most probable among other possibilities.  The Church has condemned whoever affirms that “it is not licit to follow a probable opinion or the most probable among those that are probable.” This is the case with respect to the liceity of the vaccine against the Coronavirus. We are experiencing a sad chapter in contemporary history whose weight we must bear, but we must do so with a deep trust in Wisdom and divine Goodness that never allows us to find ourselves confronted with a moral situation that is unsolvable.”

This deep study by Professor de Mattei has gathered much support in the international community.  Among these supporters are Professor Giorgia Brambilla, considered one of the most respected voices in Catholic bioethics in Italy, and Doctor Thomas Ward, president of the John Paul II Academy for Human Life and the Family, one of the most strenuous opposers of abortion in Great Britain.  Professor Brambilla writes:  “Confronted with the timely question of the liceity of the vaccine against the Coronavirus, the consciences of many are crushed and weakened by certain approaches that, on the basis of a false heroism, spread views that are unnecessarily rigid and at odds with Morality. This compendium, in coherence with the Magisterium of the Church, analyzes in a clear and complete way this difficult moral question, responding in an efficacious manner to the various theses that are involved.  There was a real need for this study.”

Doctor Ward affirms in turn: “I am profoundly grateful to Professor Roberto de Mattei for his lucid and authoritative clarification of the liceity of using or administering Covid vaccines during this pandemic.  Dissipating courageously the confusion caused by the promotion of personal opinions in opposition to the coherent, proven and true moral doctrine of the Church, he has defended the consciences of doctors and Catholic health workers who are pro-life, and he has protected the consciences, the health and life of old people and of Catholics with pre-existing conditions who through fear of gravely offending God  would have been led to think that they did not have the moral option to use the vaccine.”



Comments

  1. You were one of the only trads that were making these distinctions back when all the false information was spreading around. So many places were literally saying that the vaccine itself contained more aborted fetus cells than anything else (They have 0!). While I might disagree with you on masks, I owe you a big thanks for doing the heavy lifting on the vaccine issue and coming to the right conclusion (Before even the SSPX and the Vatican did?) I only have researched the Pfizer vaccine and came to the conclusion that it is OK for a Catholic to take, and I helped one of my older family members get it. I do think I will take it when I get the chance.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

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...