S2 E2: Vaccine and Mandates: A Theological Perspective

COVID-19 vaccines have been a topic of debate among many, and I will start with the disclaimer that what I know about science is very, very little — the last science class I took was more than seven years ago. So I am not talking about science today, which you probably guessed from the title. There are two aspects of it I hope to shed some light on: first, the use of fetal tissues in testing it, and second, the mandating of the vaccines. As always, these are controversial topics, so feel free to disagree with me if you don't like my evaluation. I am merely sharing an alternative way of thinking, which you can totally discard if you wish.

Use of Fetal Tissues in Manufacturing the Vaccine

Let us begin with the question of the use of fetal tissues for testing the vaccine. The argument of those opposed goes: because the Church condemns abortion, upholding the intrinsic value of human life from conception, the Church would equally be opposed to the use of the consequences of the sin of abortion. The issue with this line of thinking is both theological and practical.

Theologically, the fathers condemned abortion in unapologetic terms, with the only exception being direct danger to the mother's life. It is not something that is really that open to interpretation.

Another important note is that we have nothing from the fathers that speaks directly to organ donation. But we know we are called to give up our lives for those whom we love, as this is the greatest form of love. Therefore, if we follow in the footsteps of our Lord, who gave up His body on the Cross for the life of the world, it would make sense for us to give up our bodies for others — and if that is not feasible, then at least to give directives so our body may be used to save other lives after we no longer use it. You would probably fail to find a single Eastern Christian theologian objecting to organ donation. That said, many whose organs are harvested for donation are victims of accidents, sometimes caused by a drunk driver. Yet no one in good conscience says the Church accepting donated organs is the Church accepting or encouraging the reckless behaviour of drunk drivers. So how is accepting a vaccine that used fetal cells for testing or manufacturing the same as accepting the sin of abortion?

Some argue that while an adult can consent to donating an organ, the fetus had no capacity to accept or reject either the abortion or the donation. This objection is reasonable, though it is somewhat ironic, given that those raising it are often the same Christians who see no problem baptizing their infants and communing them on account of their parents' faith. There is, of course, no comparison between the blessing of baptism and the sin of abortion — but the point is that there is room to understand the involvement of parents in their children's lives even where we do not approve of the action in question. At the end of the day, responsibility falls on the shoulders of parents or guardians whether we like it or not. This is simply how life works.

Because life does not always offer the most optimal situations, it's worth remembering how God makes even the most wicked of situations an opportunity for something positive. It was wicked of Herod to murder the children of Bethlehem, but in a way they were sacrificed that Christ might be protected, and the Church today celebrates them as martyrs despite their having no capacity to consent. We celebrate the death of many martyrs not because we accept the sin of murder, but because we celebrate their sacrifice for Christ. Ought we not, then, to walk in the footsteps of God and the Church and make the most of the situation we find ourselves in for the greater good? Aborted fetuses cannot go back in time and have a chance at life — could we not at least use their cells to protect more lives from being lost?

I will conclude the theological aspect with a summary from a Catholic Church committee that dealt with this question when the Rubella and Measles vaccines were being manufactured (I have simplified the language and omitted the Latin, but the original document is linkable):

"There is a grave responsibility to use alternative vaccines and to make a conscientious objection with regard to those which have moral problems; as regards the vaccines without an alternative, the need to contest so that others may be prepared must be reaffirmed, as should be the lawfulness of using the former in the meantime insomuch as is necessary in order to avoid a serious risk not only for one's own children but also, and perhaps more specifically, for the health conditions of the population as a whole — especially for pregnant women; the lawfulness of the use of these vaccines should not be misinterpreted as a declaration of the lawfulness of their production, marketing and use, but is to be understood as being a passive material cooperation and, in its mildest and remotest sense, also active, morally justified as an extreme measure due to the necessity to provide for the good of one's children and of the people who come in contact with the children (pregnant women); such cooperation occurs in a context of moral coercion of the conscience of parents, who are forced to choose to act against their conscience or otherwise, to put the health of their children and of the population as a whole at risk. This is an unjust alternative choice, which must be eliminated as soon as possible."

Beyond the theological reasons, which might or might not convince you, it's worth noting how impractical this line of thinking is in practice: many common vaccines and even Tylenol have used fetal tissue in testing or manufacturing at some point. If that does not settle it for you, remember the words of Christ on the Sabbath: "Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the sabbath, to save life or to kill?" (Mark 3:4). The Jewish concept of pikuach nefesh — the permission to set aside the law to preserve life — makes the same point: life takes priority over law. If we believe Christ is our Passover and the fulfiller of the law, we are obliged to live the spirit of the law every day, and the spirit of the law is to have life, and have it more abundantly — even when that entails a sad but necessary prioritization. The life of the fetus has, sadly, already been lost; let us harvest whatever life may come from it for the sake of the greater good.

Mandating the Vaccine

Before turning to the mandating of vaccines in many places in the world, let me say plainly: I am doubly vaccinated against COVID-19, my immunization records are complete, and I am by no means an anti-vaxxer. Despite that, as an Orthodox Christian and an instructor of Church history in Orthodox seminaries, I must say this does not sit well with me. Anyone who knows Eastern Christian history should have red flags going up.

There was no time when a loss of freedom and the enforcement of mandates of any sort coincided with the Church prospering to the extent it could. Whenever freedom is lost, our capacity to choose is diminished — and when our capacity to choose is diminished, we can be manipulated into choosing as those controlling us wish. But you and I are made in the image of God, and that comes with a God-given right and capacity to choose; a right given by God ought not to be taken away by human beings. I would love for everyone to be vaccinated unless they have a reason not to be, and to put this pandemic behind us — but I would not want it forced on anyone against their freedom of conscience. I wonder how much we have learned from history, seeing how many of us are entirely comfortable with our freedom of choice being stripped away before our own eyes.

Some will ask: will people choose evil occasionally if given freedom? Yes. But will anyone be truly good if they are only doing good because they are forced to, with no freedom to choose otherwise? The sad answer is probably not. I know there are many arguments against what I'm suggesting, some of them intelligent — but I cannot help worrying about the state of affairs and the willingness of many to waive their right to choose the moment the government appears. I am not saying: do not trust the government or health care workers. I am saying: do not blindly trust anyone trying to force you to do anything, even if it is for your own good. If you choose to do the good, let God, faith, your love for neighbour, and conscience be the guide of your choice, and nothing else.

I will conclude with two quotes from Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, who lived through the camps of communist Russia. The first, spoken sarcastically about the pseudo-freedom of North American society:

"Freedom! To fill people's mailboxes, eyes, ears and brains with commercial rubbish against their will, television programs that are impossible to watch with a sense of coherence. Freedom! To force information on people, taking no account of their right not to accept it or their right of peace of mind. Freedom! To spit in the eyes and souls of passersby with advertisements."

The second needs no explanation:

"Should one point out that from ancient times decline in courage has been considered the beginning of the end?"

Brothers and sisters, may we live in the freedom Christ granted us — the freedom to search for the truth, discern what is right, love our neighbour, and give ourselves up for the life of the world, as our Saviour did.

← All essays