Bishops Crossing the Line

 In a recent statement, Five Bishops (most notably conservative luminaries such as Joseph Strickland and Athanasius Schneider) wrote an open letter to the Church calling upon the faithful to reject any COVID-19 vaccine that had any relationship, however implicit, with cells from aborted fetuses.  In doing so, these Bishops have crossed a line that should not be crossed:  they are openly siding against the Magisterium, and telling the faithful that the Magisterium is not to be trusted as a safe or reliable guide for Catholics.

First things first, let's give a brief understanding of what's going on here.  It is sometimes assumed that vaccines are reliant upon a steady stream of aborted children for testing and experimentation purposes.  This is not what's really going on.  Fr. Arnaud Selegny, FSSPX offers a pretty good explanation.  Now for those of you raising an eyebrow at citing the SSPX in regards to Church authority, the irony is noted for the record, yet the arguments presented are unassailable. If one is looking for a guide that explains to the lay Catholic what the controversy is, and what moral principles guide this controversy, there is none better.

Human Embryonic Lines
Among the latter, there are currently at least three lines that originated from an abortion: the HEK-293 line, from a fetus aborted in 1972 in the Netherlands; the MRC-5 line, from a fetus aborted in 1966 in England, and the line Per.C6, from an aborted fetus in the Netherlands in 1985.

 

The use of cells from aborted fetuses to produce vaccines has therefore been going on since the 1960s, and has already led to the development of various vaccines, such as those that prevent rubella, chickenpox, hepatitis A and shingles.

This has led to a difficulty for Catholics.  Abortion is an evil in society so grave it has no other comparison.  Catholics should oppose abortion as much as humanly possible.  Does that mean we must then reject these vaccines because they had a tangential link to an abortion several decades ago?

The Magisterium has waded in on this issue twice.  While "The Magisterium" is often misused, The Pontifical Academy for Life and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, both responding to official inquiries on this question, these statements clearly have more authority than your average press release or homily.  I'm just going to give brief quotes from both documents.  Both are serious attempts to grapple with a real problem, and their position is by no means unqualified.  There are conditions under which these vaccines can be administered, but those conditions are real.  The Pontifical Academy for Life said the following

As regards the diseases against which there are no alternative vaccines which are available and ethically acceptable, it is right to abstain from using these vaccines if it can be done without causing children, and indirectly the population as a whole, to undergo significant risks to their health. However, if the latter are exposed to considerable dangers to their health, vaccines with moral problems pertaining to them may also be used on a temporary basis.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was even more explicit:

Of course, within this general picture there exist differing degrees of responsibility. Grave reasons may be morally proportionate to justify the use of such “biological material”. Thus, for example, danger to the health of children could permit parents to use a vaccine which was developed using cell lines of illicit origin, while keeping in mind that everyone has the duty to make known their disagreement and to ask that their healthcare system make other types of vaccines available. Moreover, in organizations where cell lines of illicit origin are being utilized, the responsibility of those who make the decision to use them is not the same as that of those who have no voice in such a decision.

The Bishops Open Letter makes note of these sources, but does not quote them.  If they quoted them, they would not be able to state the following:

However, this principle can hardly be applied to the case of vaccines made from foetal cell lines, because those who knowingly and voluntarily receive such vaccines enter into a kind of concatenation, albeit very remote, with the process of the abortion industry.

The Vatican has indeed said that this principle can be applied to vaccines.  They did not say it must be applied to vaccines, only that it can by the faithful, who are called to discern the issue properly.  Now I am not a moral theologian, so I will not wade too deeply into discussions about material cooperation with evil.  The SSPX document and the two documents above discuss the issue.  

Fortunately, you do not need a degree in moral theology to grasp this issue.  The Church has said these vaccines may be used.  That usage is not unconditional, we must do what we can to use vaccines that are not derived from the cells of aborted fetuses.  As there are 24 different vaccines (and growing!) at various stages of development, the development of these vaccines without these moral quandaries will be easier over time.  Given the nature of the pandemic currently, this seems like a pretty open and shut case of "temporary" usage described.  Following these principles of moral theology and guidelines from Rome, various conferences have approved these vaccines.

What do these Bishops have to say in their open letter of Rome's approval, and the bishops adopting in good faith Rome's approval?

Some churchmen in our day reassure the faithful by affirming that receiving a Covid-19 vaccine derived from the cell lines of an aborted child is morally licit if an alternative is not available. They justify their assertion on the basis of “material and remote cooperation” with evil. Such affirmations are extremely anti-pastoral and counterproductive, especially when one considers the increasingly apocalyptic character of the abortion industry, and the inhuman nature of some biomedical research and embryonic technology.

Some have said this is akin to what liberals did with contraception, casting aside the Magisterium for "pastoral" reasons.  I think that takes it too far.  Contraception is something for which there is always a moral evil involved when one intends to disrupt fertility and prevent a pregnancy through artificial means.  One can never use contraception for such a purpose.  Whereas the Church does not say one must be vaccinated with vaccines developed from embryonic lines stemming from abortion.  However it is wrong in the sense that these Bishops are stating that the pronouncements of the Church are not sufficiently pastoral.  In this they are setting up "pastoral" and "theological" on differing poles.

We have seen this line of argumentation do grave damage to the Church over the past few decades, especially during the pontificate of Francis.  It is bad enough when lay faithful adopt this mentality.  It is even worse when Bishops adopt it.  When speaking in their role as a bishop, bishops should be mindful that Joseph Strickland does not speak as himself.  He speaks as a successor to the Apostles, and shepherd of souls in union with the Roman Pontiff.  You certainly aren't required to like him or even think very highly of him, but he is the head of the Church, as were his predecessors whose memory God has charged him to uphold.  Bishops have an even greater duty to make sure everything they do upholds that which the Magisterium has presented.

These Bishops should immediately be asked if one sins by taking a vaccine that came from these circumstances, and if so, how that squares with the judgement of the Magisterium.  Given the choice, always choose the Magisterium, even if these bishops do praiseworthy things elsewhere.

The Sword of Damocles over the Vatican Clears the Mind

In wake of the PA Grand Jury report detailing extensive sexual abuse and coverup by Church authorities, Catholics everywhere asked what the bishops would do about it.  Crux's Charles Collins had what I think was the best take on the matter:  it doesn't matter what the Bishops are going to do.  We've reached a point where the bishops no longer have the power or legitimacy to enact reform, and now the state will do it for them.  

We're likely to learn the extent of those reforms in 2021/2022 when a lot of those investigations conclude.  Yet its a smart point.  The Old Testament is full of instances where God, frustrated by Israel's refusal to listen and repent, forces the change he desires through other means, namely the armies of Assyria and then Babylon and finally Rome.  Church state relations throughout history have been invariably complex, but there's several situations like that Otto the Great found himself in, to where he felt the need to carry out much needed Church reforms Rome was either unwilling or incapable of carrying out on their own.

I'm reminded of this today in light of the latest round of reforms Pope Francis has launched to try and clean up the financial filth that has existed for some time in Rome, and which has basically had a field day the entirety of his pontificate.  In addition to these reforms, he has unveiled sweeping transparency reforms, as well as effectively abandoning the reform of the Roman Curia that gave the Secretariat of State unrivaled power in the modern Church, after said office had defended and protected a lot of corrupt individuals.  Almost all of these reforms were reforms he rejected earlier, sometimes forcefully, and almost always accusing those advocating precisely these reforms as acting in bad faith.  What changed?

Maybe the Pope has had a change of heart, and has seen the error of his ways.  Or, more likely, he has taken the threats of the global financial community seriously.  Numerous international institutions have threatened to effectively blacklist the Vatican from engaging in international banking because of their practices.  Being cutoff from that banking also means being cut off from the various mechanisms of servicing debt, paying off loans, and being able to get money where its needed throughout the world with ease.  As the article points out, Moneyval has made clear the time for voluntary change has passed.  Rome can change.... or else.

Arguing over the soundness of this approach is besides the point.  Yes, there is a lot of inherent potential for abuse in a system where the Church and Pope is bullied, often against their will, into making reforms.  The time for avoiding that situation was in 2013 when Francis first ascended to the throne, and had a chance at being a real reformer.  He was instead focused on being a media darling and igniting a civil war at the Synod on the Family.  The media charm offensive of tickling the ears of secular people everywhere that 'this pope is different' hasn't really produced anything of long term value, and the two synods on the family were abysmal catastrophes with regard to Church unity and papal authority.  Meanwhile, we lost a crucial chance to carry out much needed reforms.

These reforms will now be carried out under force.  It will be a great irony if Francis ends up doing down as a reforming pope who set the Church on sound footing, doing the right thing after exhausting every single opportunity to do otherwise.  Yet its an irony we should hope for nonetheless.