“ 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”
I think the real prudential decision may be whether the disease (in this case, rubella) poses a grave enough threat to justify the use of a tainted vaccine when no alternatives are available. The document is well balanced and takes into account this aspect of the problem. Perhaps this threat is not grave enough? I ask myself this question.
It's simply an answer to a question (not a binding document), and very Ratzinger-like, it is more interested in weighing the issues than in rendering a real judgement. In fact, despite what legalists read into it, it really leaves things in the prudential realm, while leaning heavily against the "gravity" of using aborted fetal tissue. (I am here assuming that in forwarding it, ++Ratzinger, head of the CDF, directed its contents, and they do bear his intellectual imprint.)
But you are right -- the assumption is there, that rubella poses a serious threat and that the shot protects against it. I believe there are questions about both those assumptions as well as unspoken issues about risks to healthy children of getting the shots, not only for the usual reasons but also because fetal DNA itself poses a risk.
It doesn't really address the use of aborted fetal tissue in a non-threatening illness, chicken pox, either.
Subsequent statements (also not binding) take things to a greater extreme of assuming what is supposed to be addressed (e.g. that vaccines protect others, not just oneself). They plunge headlong where Ratzinger was loathe to tread, but his statement is more dispositive, because he was the head of the CDF -- but still not binding in my opinion.
The truth is that modern theology very often seeks to find a reason to do the thing the world is telling us we should or could do, rather than asking whether we should do it at all. Once you've made the assumption that it would be dangerous (health-wise or politically) to avoid the shots, you have to find rationalizations to get them. That's not actually how theology should work!
I wanted to take a wait-and-see approach for the chicken pox/varicella vaccine, in which we’d wait to see if our children got it naturally and then get the vaccine when they were older if they had not already had it. My family medicine doc (very serious Catholic) told me he once had a patient who contracted varicella as a young adult and died. I think varicella is not a concern as long as the children get it while very young. I agonize over the vaccine issue.
Thank you, Leila, for being a voice in the wilderness on this topic!! The more I have reflected on this topic I am starting to ask if it is moral to vaccinate any healthy child or adult. A healthy body is a gift from God! Vaccinating a healthy body says to God “thank you for the gift of my (or my child’s) health but I must improve it by vaccination to make it more healthy and give a stronger immune system than the one You gave me”. This sounds transhumanistic to me. Would like to hear your thoughts! Thanks!
Auntie Leila has a recipe for elderberry cordial on her Like Mother Like Daughter site that she uses to prevent colds and to make colds less severe. If she’s using it to prevent colds, presumably she does not already have a cold at the time of consumption. I for one would never affix the term transhumanistic onto Auntie Leila’s thinking. ;)
Sounds delicious! The distinction though is between using nutrition to stay healthy (or supplements to supplement nutrition) vs. injecting a germ cocktail to artificially attempt to “strengthen” an otherwise healthy immune system.
I think it's a valid distinction, one that has to be examined more closely.
I can't get into what you asked, John, about vaccines, just now, but I would say here are the areas I would want to look into:
1. there seem to be many different categories, all called vaccines. We need to have a better system for addressing them
2. I don't know that we know how they all work or if they work at all
3. Some diseases are not dire and actually provide immune benefits later on in life -- what about that?
4. the first rule of medicine is "do no harm" -- how does that apply to injecting healthy people with a substance that carries risk (vs. treating a sick person, where risk might be outweighed by the benefit)
In short, we are basically lacking in information across the board.
One could argue that creating a supplement and then ingesting the supplement has a certain amount of artificiality to it due to the purity of the supplement or the high concentration of it. Does that make it immoral? How much artificiality is too much?
Thank you, Callie, for these thought-provoking responses! I really don't have super well-developed answers for this whole picture. But there are definitely some moral aspects to vaccination (beyond the problematic methods of research and manufacture) that I think need more exploration by society and by our Church.
But to address your question on high-powered supplements and how they might differ from vaccination in promoting health ... I would offer the following ... the most obvious difference is that a vaccine is ordered toward introducing a toxin/pathogen combination that triggers an immune response. Supplements, even highly concentrated ones, are ordered toward providing the body nourishment. And often supplements are taken in response to a deficit in the body (e.g. Vitamin D in northern latitudes). Some do take Vitamin C, for example, in high does to promote a stronger immune system. I don't see this as morally problematic though as Vitamin C is a nutrient we need and can get from food; so this is a way of isolating nutrients that have been found to be particularly beneficial and nourishing our bodies with them in a higher amount.
Thank you, Leila ... I appreciate your pondering on this! A few quick thoughts in response ... using your numbering:
1. Yes, indeed, what is a vaccine anyway? What are we trying to accomplish and why? Of course, we are seeking good health but in what way and at what cost? And it is very true and important to note that not all "vaccines" function in the way we traditionally think of them (i.e. many don't give immunity, prevent illness, or spreading of the illness - as we might assume they do - and this is by the manufacturers' own admission).
2. I think the more you learn about how effective or non-effective vaccines are ... and the history ... and the suspect quality of the scientific methods that have been employed to answer these questions, the less convincing our vaccine-based health approach is. Worth a deep dive for anyone!
3. This question speaks to the whole idea of immunological equilibrium - both within our own bodies and as a society. Many of the childhood diseases seem to play an important role in our development. And that equilibrium was established over millennia perhaps. We altered that rather quickly for many illnesses. What are the consequences? More troubling is that the impacts often cannot be assessed for generations!
4. This speaks to the crux of my argument. Our health is a precious gift! Intervening by modifying the immune system of a healthy baby (or sometimes, more precisely, a newborn - who are commonly vaccinated in this country within 24 hours of birth!) is an action that does not appear to be without moral consequence. And yes, this is to be highly distinguished from providing care to a person who is ill or whose body is not working as it is intended.
Leila, the first link for the inserts doesn’t seem to go anywhere. Thank you for putting this together!
Sorry, fixed it!
“ 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”
(From the Vatican document on tainted vaccines)
I think the real prudential decision may be whether the disease (in this case, rubella) poses a grave enough threat to justify the use of a tainted vaccine when no alternatives are available. The document is well balanced and takes into account this aspect of the problem. Perhaps this threat is not grave enough? I ask myself this question.
Yes, totally agree.
It's simply an answer to a question (not a binding document), and very Ratzinger-like, it is more interested in weighing the issues than in rendering a real judgement. In fact, despite what legalists read into it, it really leaves things in the prudential realm, while leaning heavily against the "gravity" of using aborted fetal tissue. (I am here assuming that in forwarding it, ++Ratzinger, head of the CDF, directed its contents, and they do bear his intellectual imprint.)
But you are right -- the assumption is there, that rubella poses a serious threat and that the shot protects against it. I believe there are questions about both those assumptions as well as unspoken issues about risks to healthy children of getting the shots, not only for the usual reasons but also because fetal DNA itself poses a risk.
It doesn't really address the use of aborted fetal tissue in a non-threatening illness, chicken pox, either.
Subsequent statements (also not binding) take things to a greater extreme of assuming what is supposed to be addressed (e.g. that vaccines protect others, not just oneself). They plunge headlong where Ratzinger was loathe to tread, but his statement is more dispositive, because he was the head of the CDF -- but still not binding in my opinion.
The truth is that modern theology very often seeks to find a reason to do the thing the world is telling us we should or could do, rather than asking whether we should do it at all. Once you've made the assumption that it would be dangerous (health-wise or politically) to avoid the shots, you have to find rationalizations to get them. That's not actually how theology should work!
I wanted to take a wait-and-see approach for the chicken pox/varicella vaccine, in which we’d wait to see if our children got it naturally and then get the vaccine when they were older if they had not already had it. My family medicine doc (very serious Catholic) told me he once had a patient who contracted varicella as a young adult and died. I think varicella is not a concern as long as the children get it while very young. I agonize over the vaccine issue.
https://www.truedevotions.ie/author/fr-ambrose-astor/
Thank you so much, Leila. If you didn’t know about these articles already, they are well well worth the read. God Bless
Thank you, Leila, for being a voice in the wilderness on this topic!! The more I have reflected on this topic I am starting to ask if it is moral to vaccinate any healthy child or adult. A healthy body is a gift from God! Vaccinating a healthy body says to God “thank you for the gift of my (or my child’s) health but I must improve it by vaccination to make it more healthy and give a stronger immune system than the one You gave me”. This sounds transhumanistic to me. Would like to hear your thoughts! Thanks!
Auntie Leila has a recipe for elderberry cordial on her Like Mother Like Daughter site that she uses to prevent colds and to make colds less severe. If she’s using it to prevent colds, presumably she does not already have a cold at the time of consumption. I for one would never affix the term transhumanistic onto Auntie Leila’s thinking. ;)
Sounds delicious! The distinction though is between using nutrition to stay healthy (or supplements to supplement nutrition) vs. injecting a germ cocktail to artificially attempt to “strengthen” an otherwise healthy immune system.
I think it's a valid distinction, one that has to be examined more closely.
I can't get into what you asked, John, about vaccines, just now, but I would say here are the areas I would want to look into:
1. there seem to be many different categories, all called vaccines. We need to have a better system for addressing them
2. I don't know that we know how they all work or if they work at all
3. Some diseases are not dire and actually provide immune benefits later on in life -- what about that?
4. the first rule of medicine is "do no harm" -- how does that apply to injecting healthy people with a substance that carries risk (vs. treating a sick person, where risk might be outweighed by the benefit)
In short, we are basically lacking in information across the board.
One could argue that creating a supplement and then ingesting the supplement has a certain amount of artificiality to it due to the purity of the supplement or the high concentration of it. Does that make it immoral? How much artificiality is too much?
Thank you, Callie, for these thought-provoking responses! I really don't have super well-developed answers for this whole picture. But there are definitely some moral aspects to vaccination (beyond the problematic methods of research and manufacture) that I think need more exploration by society and by our Church.
But to address your question on high-powered supplements and how they might differ from vaccination in promoting health ... I would offer the following ... the most obvious difference is that a vaccine is ordered toward introducing a toxin/pathogen combination that triggers an immune response. Supplements, even highly concentrated ones, are ordered toward providing the body nourishment. And often supplements are taken in response to a deficit in the body (e.g. Vitamin D in northern latitudes). Some do take Vitamin C, for example, in high does to promote a stronger immune system. I don't see this as morally problematic though as Vitamin C is a nutrient we need and can get from food; so this is a way of isolating nutrients that have been found to be particularly beneficial and nourishing our bodies with them in a higher amount.
Lots to ponder!
Thanks for putting this together. The infographic of the vaccines for children up to 12 months is very powerful.
Thank you, Leila ... I appreciate your pondering on this! A few quick thoughts in response ... using your numbering:
1. Yes, indeed, what is a vaccine anyway? What are we trying to accomplish and why? Of course, we are seeking good health but in what way and at what cost? And it is very true and important to note that not all "vaccines" function in the way we traditionally think of them (i.e. many don't give immunity, prevent illness, or spreading of the illness - as we might assume they do - and this is by the manufacturers' own admission).
2. I think the more you learn about how effective or non-effective vaccines are ... and the history ... and the suspect quality of the scientific methods that have been employed to answer these questions, the less convincing our vaccine-based health approach is. Worth a deep dive for anyone!
3. This question speaks to the whole idea of immunological equilibrium - both within our own bodies and as a society. Many of the childhood diseases seem to play an important role in our development. And that equilibrium was established over millennia perhaps. We altered that rather quickly for many illnesses. What are the consequences? More troubling is that the impacts often cannot be assessed for generations!
4. This speaks to the crux of my argument. Our health is a precious gift! Intervening by modifying the immune system of a healthy baby (or sometimes, more precisely, a newborn - who are commonly vaccinated in this country within 24 hours of birth!) is an action that does not appear to be without moral consequence. And yes, this is to be highly distinguished from providing care to a person who is ill or whose body is not working as it is intended.
Thanks!
The Midwestern Doctor is a wonderful resource, if you haven’t encountered it yet here on Substack. Extensive articles written in layman’s terms.
e.g. https://open.substack.com/pub/amidwesterndoctor/p/why-does-every-vaccine-often-cause?r=cqzui&utm_medium=ios
Yes, I do read that one. Very good.