The Covid-19 pandemic has forced difficult choices on all of us. One the most pressing is the question of whether the current Covid vaccines can be used morally and with a clear conscience. This opinion paper is not commenting on the safety or effectiveness of the vaccines except in a brief and ancillary way. The central question for us as pro-lifers is whether the manufacture of the vaccines is so morally compromised as to make the receiving of them an immoral act.

Many voices have been raised in the pro-life and Catholic world on both sides of this question with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, bishop’s conferences, bishops, lay groups of professionals, and others on one side and several bishops and groups on the other side. This is often the case in issues of co-operation since the issues are generally complex and dependent upon shifting circumstances and decisions of prudential judgement.

The front runners in the “Warp Speed” development and distribution of vaccines are the Pfizer-Bio and Moderna vaccines. These have used relatively new, but not unique, genetic techniques that are not dependent on the use of aborted fetal cell lines. The vaccines were tested against one of these aborted fetal cell lines, but that one test was only one of several and all the others were non-controversial tests. Thus, the use of aborted fetal cell lines is not essential to the development or manufacture of the the Pfizer-Bio or Moderna vaccines in any way and, therefore, these vaccines should be seen be seen as morally neutral.

It would appear that the Astra-Zeneca (AZ) and Johnson and Johnson (J&J) did use aborted fetal cell lines in the manufacture of their vaccines. Does this disqualify them from a good conscience use?

Here we need to review the issues of co-operation. Did we formally agree to the evil acts? Are we materially necessary to the acts? Is there a sufficient distance from the act and our participation in it or the actions that flowed from it? What is the element of either lack of choice in choosing such actions or the nature of force (or duress)? What scandal might be caused to people who are not aware of the complexity of such decisions that we make in allowing such actions or even encouraging them?

Did we agree to the morality of such abortions? Obviously, no. Therefore, we have not “formally” agreed to the co-operation in such evil. We have not approved it and have vocally protested against it.

Is the action of producing such vaccines under our control or have we participated in the manufacture of them? No, therefore in an important area of consideration we have not materially consented to the development, manufacture or promotion of them.

Do we have a distance from such evil acts? Yes. The abortions were done approximately 50 years ago and we are not physically present or necessary to the acts.

Do we have a choice in receiving such vaccines? This will depend on several circumstances. In some jurisdictions, you may have a choice or the choice may be receiving morally neutral vaccines such as the Pfizer-Bio or Moderna vaccines at a later date. The confusion in the provincial and localized roll out of the vaccinations may mean that there could be a substantial and unduly hard or onerous wait time for receiving neutral vaccines. This is a personal decision that must take into account your age, local area, and need or wish for a timely vaccination in regard to your personal needs, profession, etc.

If there is no choice in vaccines or such a choice would be seen as too delayed for the pressing needs of a person or family or work or community infection, it would mean that you could be under duress and, therefore, because you have not given formal cooperation you would morally be able to receive even the vaccine that you see as morally dubious or compromised.

Duress does not have to mean being physically forced if the pressing urgent needs of the individual in her present position mean that her choices are time limited or too unduly restricted. For example, I am not forced to use a hospital which is morally compromised by doing abortions or mercy-killing but if I choose to use the only hospital that I can and it is one that does abortions or mercy-killing, I am not morally guilty (or morally culpable as it is known). We are almost all in such circumstances on a routine basis.

The infection rate of the Covid virus in its various mutations may be seen as a type of serious duress if the needs of protecting vulnerable populations is urgent. Considering the death rates and numbers among vulnerable, primarily elderly populations and the severe restrictions placed on in-care populations, the need is certainly urgent.

Considering the lack of formal cooperation, the very limited material cooperation in the development or production of morally compromised vaccines, the limited choices that seem to be available, and the urgency of the control of the pandemic with otherwise very limited effective means, I would say that the use of the BP and Moderna vaccines is morally neutral and the use of the current AZ and J&J vaccines is morally allowable.

The question of a moral duty to receive such vaccines must be left to a individual’s prudential understanding and conscience being aware that there will be a wide array of opinions all of which have some moral weight.

I see this opinion as in keeping with CDF statements of the last 15 years and a significant majority of such authorities as I listed at the beginning as have spoken on this matter.

Father Tom Lynch (PFLC National President)