Death over the Vaccine

For over a year, Catholic theologians and ecclesiastical authorities have tried to justify the use of abortion-tainted vaccines against COVID-19 by arguing that material cooperation with evil may be justified under certain conditions. They posit that because the act of the cooperator (the one who receives a vaccine) is so far removed from the sin of the principal agent (the abortionist), the obligation of avoiding material cooperation ceases when presented with a sufficient reason. The “Note” issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on 21 December 2020 sums up how most Catholics have been thinking about the issue, but this statement presents an inadequate analysis of the situation by confusing some moral principles and overlooking several others.

It is not accurate to speak of “cooperation” with the abortions that took place in the past, because this misapplies the definition of cooperation, which means to give help to another to carry out a sin. Regardless of whether one takes the vaccines today or not, one has no influence on the commission of an act which has already occurred. Usually, the act of the cooperator is carried out in the present, while the sin of the principal agent is to be carried out in the future; for example, if I have made up my mind to rob a bank, you cooperate with my act of theft by driving me to the bank beforehand. Now, the act of the cooperator can take place after the act of the principal agent, such as if you hide the stolen money in your car after I rob the bank, but even in that case, you are giving me aid so that I can commit theft. In the case of the vaccine, the recipient has no impact on the fact that the abortion has already occurred, so what ought to be applied here is not, strictly speaking, the principles of cooperation, but the broader concept of being an accessory to another’s sin.

To benefit from a past evil act is one way to be an accessory to another’s sin. Now, one could argue, the relationship between the original abortions and the vaccine is remote, so this really should no longer be a moral concern several decades later. However, this overlooks the fact that in the intermediate steps between the abortion and bringing the final product (the vaccines) to market, many other grave sins were committed. Not only is abortion immoral, it is also sinful to take the murdered child’s cells to create cell lines to be used in experiments and production. In many cases, this biological material was also taken and used without consent, which only adds to the gravity of the sin, and by extension, the gravity of being an accessory. One must consider not only the sin of abortion, but also a multitude of other grave sins that are inherent to an industry which is based upon murder and the subsequent trafficking in human remains.

Moral theologians and Church authorities who refuse to recognize this fact have not only demonstrated a misunderstanding of definitions and principles, but themselves are also complicit—even if unknowingly—in the culture of death. In the case of the vaccine, the recipient who wishes to derive benefit from this product is using an evil means to a good end, and it is never permissible to do this, contrary to the error of consequentialism. In fact, one should rather say a supposedly good end, because the scientific research conducted in the past year has demonstrated that these particular vaccines are not necessary, safe, or effective. In addition to the thousands of deaths and long list of reported side effects, even the so-called “experts” themselves have admitted that the vaccine does not actually provide protection against COVID-19, with the rise of so-called “breakthrough cases” and the fact that boosters are already being marketed to the public.

While many have misused the principles of cooperation, this concept is not entirely unrelated to the current dilemma at hand, as the past may very well provide an indication of future acts. The medical establishment itself has admitted that abortions that happened in the past were used to create fetal cell lines to help in the production of vaccines, and there is more than sufficient reason to believe that this disgusting industry will continue for the foreseeable future. The question of cooperation concerns the fact that one’s use of the vaccines will encourage the production of more vaccines, which will eventually lead to future abortions and acts of disrespect to the dead. Given the fact that there are many grave sins involved here, distinctions must be made with respect to the proximity and liceity of cooperating with different acts.

If you accept an abortion-tainted vaccine, you first and foremost cooperate with the researchers and manufacturers who use illicitly-obtained biological material by increasing the quantity of vaccines demanded. Vaccines are an economic commodity: if you take one, someone else cannot have it, and so more need to be produced. Second, you cooperate with the abortionists who will perform more abortions in the future to supply more fetal cells once the currently available cell lines deteriorate; although modifications are made to delay deterioration, it belongs to the nature of material things to decay over time. You claim that your cooperation is material because you simply wish to derive supposed benefits from the vaccine, even though you do not wish to support the abortion industry or encourage the researchers who engage in illicit practices. In addition, your cooperation is mediate because you do not perform the immoral act along with the principal agents but only encourage them to continue in their evil acts.

Mediate cooperation is also subdivided into proximate and remote: in this case, your cooperation with the researchers and manufacturers is proximate, while your cooperation with future abortionists is more remote. So while those claiming that it is only remote material cooperation with abortion are not incorrect, their conclusions are flawed because they have completely missed the more proximate cooperation with the researchers and manufacturers who themselves benefit from and support the abortion industry. In addition, when we consider the conditions necessary to justify material cooperation, the nature of the sins committed by the medical establishment renders it very difficult, if not impossible, to justify taking the abortion-tainted COVID-19 vaccines. Contrary to popular belief, having a grave reason is not the only condition that must be met before arriving at the conclusion that material cooperation can be justified.

The first two conditions are related to the principle of double effect, when there is both a good and an evil result. One must consider whether cooperation can be justified to avoid some kind of loss or the retention of some good, but this cooperation entails permitting the sin of the other person. So here, we have to make sure that the cooperator does not intend the evil result, which is presupposed in a case of genuinely material cooperation. In addition, the good he does intend cannot be caused by the evil effect, otherwise his cooperation becomes implicitly formal. (For example, if you try to get me drunk to encourage me to go to confession, then you are a formal cooperator.) The other two conditions are that the act performed by the cooperator must be good or at least indifferent, and that there must be a sufficiently grave reason.

Say you receive an abortion-tainted vaccine to decrease your chances at catching COVID-19. You do not intend the sins of the abortionists and manufacturers, but increasing the quantity of vaccines demanded is the only way you can obtain the benefits you want, so a case may actually be made for implicit formal cooperation. Explicit formal cooperation is when the cooperator intends the sin of the principal agent as an end (you drive me to the bank because you approve of the robbery I intend to commit). Implicit formal cooperation is when the cooperator does not approve of the sin but intends the end of the principal agent’s external act to gain an advantage (you may not approve of robbery, but you drive me to the bank because you want money). The vaccine recipient may not approve of any of the sins involved in the manufacturing process, but he does intend its end, the vaccine itself. Even if he claims to disapprove of these sins, there is an implicit false consent given to them.

As for whether there is a good reason for cooperating, this really does not matter anymore if cooperation is indeed formal, but let us consider this point anyway. The graver the sin that will be committed by the principal agent, the graver your reason must be for cooperating. The gravest sins of all are those that are directed against the necessary public welfare, which is the common safety of Church or State. In this case, the moral theologians teach that cooperation cannot be justified: there can be no greater public good to justify it, and no private good, even life itself, can take precedence. To put it simply, we should be willing to die to conserve the safety of Church or State.

The cooperation with researchers, manufacturers, and abortionists committed by a vaccine recipient has already been covered above, but there is yet another group of people involved, although more remotely. These are the globalists, the elites who are making use of the medical establishment to achieve their religious, political, and social goals, which involve the attempted destruction of the Church, the annihilation of the existing States and their replacement with a world government, and total social control through depopulation. It simply cannot be said that the necessary public welfare and common safety are not at stake in this case. This is not a conspiracy theory: one of the biggest proponents of mass vaccination has openly stated that if we do a good job with vaccination programs, we can decrease the human population. And the authoritarianism that has resulted from this so-called “pandemic” is self-evident to anyone at this point with eyes to see and ears to hear.

While speculative considerations on the morality of COVID-19 vaccination might remain an unsettled matter for the time being, given that so many theologians and members of the clergy have presented differing opinions, the simple faithful ultimately need practical guidance in a case of doubt. It is not permissible for a moral agent to act in a state of practical doubt, because it is not possible to act rightly while disregarding the moral law, and so doubt must be removed before moral certitude can be achieved. However, when even the authorities cannot agree on the proper application of principles, it may be impossible to fully resolve practical doubt, in which case it is necessary to turn to the moral systems.

It is unnecessary to go into great detail about the three approved moral systems—probabilism, equiprobabilism, and probabiliorism—because the decision here is clear. The sins which the vaccine recipients would be cooperating with are so grave as to pose a danger to the supreme rights of man, as the principal agents clearly reject the fundamental right to life and the integrity of the human body, and they seek the destruction of all three societies established by divine institution (Church, State, and family). Between taking the vaccine and not taking the vaccine, the latter is the safer position, and thus, the moral question is settled; we must be tutiorists in this case, even if it is prohibited to adhere to tutiorism in general as a school of thought.

While theoretical discussions can and should continue, for the average person, it is enough to insist on refusing these poisonous, dangerous vaccines. We ought to prefer death over taking one of these vaccines, because there is nothing worth risking one’s soul for. As John Henry Newman said, it would be better for the sun and moon to drop from heaven, for the earth to fail, and for millions to die of starvation than for one person to commit even a single venial sin. And likewise, it would be better for everyone on earth to die from COVID-19 than for one of us to commit a mortal sin by taking an abortion-tainted vaccine.