Bishops weighing in on vaccine freedom

Of course I'm appalled at the New York bishops' letter regarding people's freedom in medical matters. They bring dishonor on themselves, making it clear that they are guided by lawyers and have no regard for anything beyond the most utilitarian, transactional considerations. They should rescind it and apologize immediately. 

The bishops of Colorado have made a good statement and will help raise the moral tenor of the conversation. I appreciate that these bishops recognize that people have reasons to resist and must be supported by their moral leaders.

Conscience issues come in with the question of aborted fetal cells, yes, but also with other matters. In conscience, one might object to treating the body in the mechanistic manner displayed in our current vaccine-based health care model. "She did not wish to be viewed in that agricultural light" as Dickens has a character remark. 

The truth is that most decisions about medical care are prudential decisions, not actually related to religious freedom but to medical freedom. There isn't "church teaching" about such things, other than to point out that people have reasons for making choices. The teaching we need now concerns the principles that inform one's decisions, and those teachings are of course based on the Commandments. An important one is that whatever a person decides, that the good he seeks not be brought about by intentionally harming another person.

The "template" letter they provide for pastors is actually better than the their own letter, in that it makes this broader, very important point regarding the prudential nature of decisions on vaccines (and other medical interventions) apart from the moral questions surrounding their provenance:

Therapeutic proportionality is an assessment of whether the benefits of a medical intervention outweigh the undesirable side-effects and burdens in light of the integral good of the person, including spiritual, psychological, and bodily goods.[5] The judgment of therapeutic proportionality must be made by the person who is the potential recipient of the intervention,[6] not by public health authorities or by other individuals who might judge differently in their own situations.

Prudential issues are simply decisions one makes when one balances risks. We have to be free in these matters and it's overly dramatic to make it sound as if there is some secret force motivating those who don't think these vaccines are going to be our salvation, or that there is some religious (and not simply rational) reason to avoid them. For instance, a Jew might not want to receive a medical product containing from pork. Even the most orthodox Jew would acknowledge that this a purely religious reason -- it would not obtain for a non-Jew. But both the Jew and the Christian of good will would resist aborted fetal tissue research and development as well as the idea that government will dictate what will be injected. These objections are not religious but have to do with violation of the universal moral law and medical freedom, respectively.

I hope that as bishops gain a voice, they begin to discuss things in a more common sense way. This letter from the Colorado bishops is a good start.