Flu vaccines -- aborted dna?

[Heinrich]

Title says it all. I want to know if I can morally give out vaccine forms at school.

[Jayne]

You really should talk with a priest.  Issues around cooperation with evil are pretty complicated.  You need to figure out if it is material or formal cooperation.  Personally, I would say it is material cooperation which, along with other factors, leads me to the conclusion that you could give out the vaccine forms.  But I don't have the level of expertise you need.

There is a Vatican document on the issue, if that is a source you could trust: https://www.immunize.org/talking-about-vaccines/vaticandocument.htm

This document does a decent job of explaining the traditional principles of moral theology involved, so it would be a starting point, at least.

The principle of licit cooperation in evil

The first fundamental distinction to be made is that between formal and material cooperation. Formal cooperation is carried out when the moral agent cooperates with the immoral action of another person, sharing in the latter's evil intention. On the other hand, when a moral agent cooperates with the immoral action of another person, without sharing his/her evil intention, it is a case of material cooperation.

Material cooperation can be further divided into categories of immediate (direct) and mediate (indirect), depending on whether the cooperation is in the execution of the sinful action per se, or whether the agent acts by fulfilling the conditions - either by providing instruments or products - which make it possible to commit the immoral act. Furthermore, forms of proximate cooperation and remote cooperation can be distinguished, in relation to the "distance" (be it in terms of temporal space or material connection) between the act of cooperation and the sinful act committed by someone else. Immediate material cooperation is always proximate, while mediate material cooperation can be either proximate or remote.

Formal cooperation is always morally illicit because it represents a form of direct and intentional participation in the sinful action of another person.10 Material cooperation can sometimes be illicit (depending on the conditions of the "double effect" or "indirect voluntary" action), but when immediate material cooperation concerns grave attacks on human life, it is always to be considered illicit, given the precious nature of the value in question11.

A further distinction made in classical morality is that between active (or positive) cooperation in evil and passive (or negative) cooperation in evil, the former referring to the performance of an act of cooperation in a sinful action that is carried out by another person, while the latter refers to the omission of an act of denunciation or impediment of a sinful action carried out by another person, insomuch as there was a moral duty to do that which was omitted12.

Passive cooperation can also be formal or material, immediate or mediate, proximate or remote. Obviously, every type of formal passive cooperation is to be considered illicit, but even passive material cooperation should generally be avoided, although it is admitted (by many authors) that there is not a rigorous obligation to avoid it in a case in which it would be greatly difficult to do so.

[Greg]

I would think you could, in the same sense that the postman could deliver them to houses.

You are not promoting the vaccine, merely being asked to be a postman as part of your job.

[Jayne]

If you are willing to slog through a more in-depth treatment of vaccine issues, this one is good:

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/213055091.pdf

 

The author is a Catholic philosopher with a reputation for orthodoxy and The Linacre Quarterly in which it appeared is the official publication of the Catholic Medical Association. The writing, however, is at the level one would expect of a professional journal for bioethics. I think that most people outside the field would have to work at it, but you have strong language skills, so it should be doable.

[Daniel]

I believe that some vaccines don't use "aborted DNA". I recall this website has some lists: https://cogforlife.org

As for handing out a vaccine form, I don't know. Does the form mention the name of the vaccine? If so, maybe check the above website and see if you see it on one of the lists, and, if it does use "aborted DNA", I'm inclined to think that you must refuse to give out the forms. But if you don't know whether or not the vaccine in question uses "aborted DNA" and/or is otherwise evil, then I don't know what to do.

This is why I personally cannot find employment. It shouldn't even be an issue, but it is. Every employer is evil, and there is no escaping the evil. Even the simplest tasks are made hopelessly complicated, because the employer is evil. You can't even work a seemingly-innocent job without being told to do something that's at least questionable.

So I don't know.

But I would avoid listening to any philosopher who tries to distinguish between "formal" and "material" cooperation, and any ethicist who tries to appeal to the "double effect". I don't trust them or their teachings. I'm pretty sure that ethics is the sort of science that can only be known by way of revelation. Human reasoning, in principle, is insufficient. You cannot reason your way to moral truth. Unless these principles are to be found in official Church teaching, I don't trust them.

And why must we all become expert theologians in order to work at the local post office, supermarket, or school? It's madness!

[Jayne]

The distinction between formal and material cooperation in evil was introduced by St. Alphonsus Liguori, a Doctor of the Church.  His nine volume work Theologia Moralis received papal approval.  It is based on ideas and assumptions accepted by Catholics for hundreds of years.

The purpose of Catholic moral theology is to give us principles to guide our moral decisions.  To reject these principles leaves us without the guidance of the Church.  We are left to base our decisions on our whims and scruples. 

Daniel, your rejection of Catholic moral theology has left you unable to even get a job.  How can you possibly think that this is a good way to do things?

And why must we all become expert theologians in order to work at the local post office, supermarket, or school? It's madness!

Nobody has suggested that we all become expert theologians.  Priests study moral theology as part of their formation.  That is why I advised Heinrich to consult a priest.  I gave links to works on moral theology in case he or others were interested.

[Daniel]

Well I'm not going to condemn moral theology. But it just sounds to me like guesswork rather than "Church teaching".

As for Alphonsus Liguori, I'm a little skeptical after reading parts of his Glories of Mary which sounds outright blasphemous. I don't know anything about his Theologia Moralis.

While it's probably a good idea to consult a priest, I'll point out that priests are not infallible and that Jesus even warned us not to always trust them especially in this day and age.


But as for the question at hand, I admit that it's quite possible that I'm wrong. I give up.

[Jayne]

Catholic moral theology is a system of Church approved principles that we can use to figure out the right thing to do in specific situations. It is not meant to give absolute certainty. There are very few things in life that we know with absolute certainty. We need to move ahead with our lives based on our best understanding. We do our best to do the right thing, but we should not become immobilized by moral dilemmas.

[Heinrich]

Well I'm not going to condemn moral theology. But it just sounds to me like guesswork rather than "Church teaching".

As for Alphonsus Liguori, I'm a little skeptical after reading parts of his Glories of Mary which sounds outright blasphemous. I don't know anything about his Theologia Moralis.

You don't know much of anything.

[The Theosist]

Catholic moral theology is a system of Church approved principles that we can use to figure out the right thing to do in specific situations. It is not meant to give absolute certainty. There are very few things in life that we know with absolute certainty. We need to move ahead with our lives based on our best understanding. We do our best to do the right thing, but we should not become immobilized by moral dilemmas.

Yet you present some half-dozen propositions above as though you were absolutely certain of their truth.