Vax policy aside, if it were truly a "right" of all Catholics to send their kids to parochial school, they'd have to cost a lot less, provide special ed, etc. But they don't.
The only way Catholic education was ever affordable in the past was because you didn’t have to pay nuns brothers separate competitive salaries and benefits packages. Don’t blame the schools today for the fact that there’s no nuns anymore. “Affordable” Catholic education is an illusion (except, of course, if you homeschool!)
Exactly! As a father of two toddlers, “my time” has no value. The priority is always towards the service of my family. As it turns out, once you have kids, things are no longer “about you”
This is a bigger discussion, but there are choices that can make Catholic education decidedly more affordable -- this is experienced in places in which parishes customarily contribute a large % of offertory to the school, considering it the largest apostolate and the lifeblood of the parish.
I still have my fingers crossed that the ~ 2 packs of second hand cigarettes I smoked working the parish bingo every Wednesday night - for ~ 50% of my Catholic High School tuition 🙏 - won’t come back to bite me. Either way my Catholic high school experience with the OFM’s deep in the heart of Pittsburgh’s Steel Valley was a profound life changer for me 💪 🙏. Maybe my 1/2 mile time in track would have been better but I could close bingo financials down to the nearest nickel before I graduated high school 💪
As a man with a severely cognitively disabled brother and as a previous Catholic School teacher: providing special ed is out of reach of Catholic schools as a practical matter. The priest in charge of my school really wanted to start a program (which would have been the first Catholic special ed program in the state) but the costs were just impossible to raise. Several million upfront for the dedicated, specialized facilities and space, plus around $40k per year per student (compared to our tuition of about $4k per year or, in the public schools, $16k per student in state spending per student).
All this to say, yes, it would be wonderful if Catholic schools provided special ed. But half a million per year to educate one classroom of twelve children would rival the cost of a whole 100+ student middle school combined. It's not a matter of will to do it -- many pastors and teachers want to see it happen -- but of the specialized costs that come with serving a highly diverse high-need community.
I'm sure what you write is true. All the more reason to question those who want to abolish the Dept of Ed and the services they provide for disabled students, since it's practically impossible to raise private funds to do the same even when the will is there.
I am heartened to see what seems like a growing desire to accommodate special needs where possible; and I agree with you about the the infeasibility of providing the level of services public schools are legally obligated to provide (barring major restructuring of how schools are financed)
But I have also seen Catholic schools that are so used to thinking "we can't accommodate special needs" that they refuse accommodations that are free and very minor, simply because they don't want to open the door to doing ~anything at all (like, "this kid is still getting used to operating their wheelchair; if they come in quietly and non disruptively, is it okay if they're a few minutes late to class?" --> "No, there's exactly 5 minutes transition time between classes; any kid who is late gets detention; if we start giving exceptions, how could we enforce any school discipline at all??")
Thankfully, our principal was already pretty reasonable for accommodations like that. Part of the purpose (we felt) of having a special education program is to teach the general student body charity towards people with different needs from their own. That has to start from the literal adults in the room saying "they need this, so in the virtue of justice we will give it to them". So yeah, it definitely begins with extra transition time and not making a big deal about absolute, identical conformity from every student on things like that.
I worked as a teacher's aide for handicapped students for years. Other than being wheelchair accessible, having separate bathrooms with tables and showers as well as toilet, and having a higher number of staff than a regular classroom, it wasn't all that different from a regulat classroom. I doubt it was as expensive per student as you claim.
The things you describe are for for physically handicapped students -- which we already served and had accommodations for. We were looking at Down's, Autism, Intellectual Disability, and other groups that require specialists. So that 40k figure is looking at physical therapy, speech therapy, social skills work, and the rest. My own brother cost our school district $55k per year, and that's a figure I know for sure.
Also might be of interest perhaps in a different way as a diocesan model: in the diocese of Pittsburgh, there is something called the St. Anthony's Program and it is wonderful. It's for students with special needs and is an option that allows them to integrate in a typical Catholic school, but with specialized life skill classes, etc. https://stanthonykids.org/
Perhaps part of the explanation, which hopefully the MD involved knows, is that eczema can be treated (like mine) with a topical cream, either steroidal or non-steroidal.
If the parent and doctor came to a reasonable conclusion that the varicella vaccine was a potential trigger for eczema, I don't see how offering that it can be treated with medications is an acceptable response. The best medicine is not needing any at all. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the mentality that has ruled the medical establishment for a while where we're getting medications to treat side-effects of other medications to treat side effects of other medications and so on.
Long term or repeated use of steroids (even topical) is not risk free. Additionally, severe eczema is typically not treated with topical medication if it is over a significant surface area of the body. The oral or injectable medications used come with their own risks.
Yeah, that entertaining train of medications to treat the side effects of the other medications starts eating its own tail at some point. I think the rule of thumb is that if there's more than 6, you don't have to ask if there are drug interactions or a circle of side effects. There definitely is.
Asking why the child is having a reaction, and whether she has some mild subclinical problem that, when a vaccine is added, overtaxes her system, might be a good idea.
Do you seriously think that the Clark family did not explore applying a topical cream to their child's eczema and jumped directly to "vaccines bad"?
The story of my child is eerily similar to the story of Clark's daughter. Full body severe eczema, food allergies to almost everything. We also came to the conclusion of stopping all vaccines when he was 18 months old. Consenting to giving him all those vaccines when he was so little is my biggest regret as a parent. I will now always wonder if he would be healthier without them. I could write a long post about all the problems and how we came to the conclusion of vaccines being a big contributing factor (in consultation with an immunologist), but I am not going to do so, as those who are convinced that vaccines cannot possibly cause any problems whatsoever are not open to listening. Fortunately, I found a good private (non-Catholic) school for my child that accepts our religious exemption. And, if the choice would be between him getting caught up on all his vaccines or homeschooling, I would not even think about it - it would be homeschooling.
I listen and I pray for your child. Thankfully you did all of the appropriate things, consulting with an immunologist etc. My fear is the brave new world in which many may NOT do the appropriate steps you took. Best practices don’t seem like they may stand the test of time in the final quarter of my life. And all I can do is pray for people like you. ☮️ 🙏
Right because if anything has been proven true, it's that you should totally trust Pfizer, Moderna, etc. They're just altruistic companies operating for the good of humanity.
To cease taking unnecessary vaccines of which may exist to enrich pharmaceutical companies. Again, if you take a look at the vaccine schedules pre-1984 versus post 1983, it is a wonder any boomer or gen xer walks the earth. What is the necessity for all of these new vaccines?
Sigh...with all the important things we have to fight about, why are there so many vax absolutists out there? Is there risk associated with not vaccinating? Yes there is a tiny risk. The risk to the those who are themselves vaccinated is even smaller.
Look at it this way, is it more risky to your child's welfare for them to go to school with those who are unvaccinated or with those from single parent households? Those who don't take their faith seriously? Those who set a bad example with what they eat? Social media. Etc.
I know what I'm saying is something of a logical fallacy, but the risk is just so miniscule, and it's exhausting to fight about things that just don't really matter just because we can. Every action has a reaction. When you force anti-vaxxers to the margins, you lose them in the fight for the things that really matter in this life. I have many anti-vaxxer friends and just about every one of them is raising a wonderful family.
Just grant these people wide exemptions and move on with your life. Even if you think they're dead wrong. Remember, you're probably wrong about a lot of things too
"is it more risky to your child's welfare for them to go to school with those who are unvaccinated or with those from single parent households? " In a word, yes.
I suspect you place a higher value on the flesh than the soul. A school filled with a high percentage of single parent homes will suffer the maladies that come along with such a scenario. Less discipline. Increased poverty. Less religious. Etc.
What's funny is that I'm taking the live and let live position and you're accusing me of being sanctimonious. My point is not that we avoid single parent families. It's actually the exact opposite - we all live around and with single parent families. All of us accept risks every day. Why single out the tiny risk of anti-vaxxers when you accept much larger risks all the time?
It's well documented that tons of maladies come along with single parent homes. Most are perfectly fine or even absolutely wonderful. Statistically speaking they're much more likely than two parent homes to have a lot of issues. If you had a school full of single parent families like is common in many places, yes it is absolutely a risk to every child there because our children are formed not just by their parents but by the communities in which they live. The only reason I brought up that example is because it is so common and of course we all accept it.
Real life is a place to encounter God. Hmm...yeah...I like that. So at what age will you purchase some cocaine for your children to try? When do you give them their first beer? Age three or four? How about sitting down for a pornographic movie...I mean...be real...they're going to be exposed to it sometime, why not under your watchful eye?
> Sigh...with all the important things we have to fight about, why are there so many vax absolutists out there? Is there risk associated with not vaccinating? Yes there is a tiny risk. The risk to the those who are themselves vaccinated is even smaller.
For some diseases, the risk is significant. If you don't have 95% of the population vaccinated against measles, you risk seeing outbreaks among the community. Measles used to kill millions of people each year worldwide. Even if that's not likely to happen today, a community where even 10-20% didn't get a measles vaccine could lead to numerous deaths, even among people who did get vaccinated.
The death rate from measles drops precipitously if they aren't deficient in vitamin A. Which is why it's very unlikely today for people to die of it. There's a known, viable treatment.
Very unlikely? Apparently the recent outbreak in Texas and the surrounding area has 2 deaths for 355 cases. I know that's only about a half a percent, but I'd rather not play with those odds.
And even if you don't die, if getting the measles is anything like the chickenpox I had as a kid, I'd much rather avoid it. Unfortunately the chickenpox vaccine came around a few years too late for me. So I had to miss a week and a half of school, itching miserably, and I still have the scars on my face to prove it.
There's a correlation between those for whom vaccines do not work well, and those who are particularly likely to die of disease. Before deciding those odds apply to every child, it would be nice to know whether they were perfectly healthy children, or whether they already had a serious illness, known or unknown. The annual rate of death from measles when practically every child was getting it was in the 400-500 range. That's considerably less than half a percent.
As far as getting sick goes, yeah, it's unpleasant. That doesn't mean the preventative is always worth it. After all, we can draw a direct line of comparison between your week itching over chicken pox, and the longer-term eczema the child in the original article was itching over. There are also people who die from vaccinations. Live virus vaccines have been known to get people sick (most modern cases of polio come from vaccinations). Risk analysis actually requires looking at both sides, and it's generally good to incorporate the particular facts for the particular person.
Now there is an easy way to remove the religious objections of a lot of people very quickly. The MMR vaccine in the US was developed with the use of aborted fetal cells. There is another measles vaccine developed and used in Japan for several decades, to present day, that did not use them. It is not approved in the US, due to economic protectionism. The moral objection could be easily removed by certain people being less greedy.
The funniest part of the measles debate for me is that my child got full blown measles as a side effect of the MMR vaccine (high fever, rash, the whole thing...). I know of at least one other child who also got measles after the MMR shot. It is not super-uncommon. So, the argument of getting a vaccine to avoid getting sick does not quite work...
I also grew up in a country that, at that time, did not use MMR or varicella vaccines. Got all of these diseases as a child. All the children I knew got them. I am not aware of any single one of the children in my family/school/church circles dying or having any serious side effects as a result of measles (or mumps or rubella or varicella). If those were such a horrible diseases killing millions of children, I should have known at least one dead child.
I believe the numbers reported from Texas are skewed. First, it is likely they had more than 355 cases (for example, I did not take my child to doctor with measles as I knew what it was and could treat it at home - there is nothing else that the doctor could have done for us). Second, you do not know the overall health condition of those who died, there may have been other contributing factors.
You're probably right that there may be more than 355 cases. But the historical data are clear. Your personal anecdotes don't override the statistics. Yes, measles had worse outcomes in poorer countries. But American children died of measles before the vaccine was developed, and presumably they died in just about every other country, too.
The historical data is clear on the fact that the childhood mortality decreased predominantly thanks to better hygiene and nutrition. This also applies to the decrease in mortality to communicable diseases such as measles, as I have observed in my home country in the 1980ies when essentially no one died of measles despite the lack of vaccination program.
As a percent of people affected by somebody who commits a violent act? Probably darn near 100% of those crimes are committed by people from broken homes. What's the death rate of being exposed to measles? Chicken pox?
The whole concept of vaccination depends on herd immunity as no vaccine is 100% effective. Based on that, one off exceptions should have little-to-no impact on the herd’s immunity.
That said, once you reach a certain threshold (depending on class/school size, etc.) returns diminish significantly. So if “one offs” become “most students” then there’s a deeper problem to address.
I think the problem comes almost exclusively from the Covid era. Sure, there have always been people who were hesitant about vaccines, but the handling of Covid was so dogmatic, Orwellian, and downright threatening (who can forget Biden's comments in December 2021?) that people started questioning things. Plus, don't forget there was a whole string of sudden collapses and heart issues surrounding those who received Covid vaccines and were otherwise healthy.
Covid was the worst thing to happen to the medical community in a very long time, not just because it was deadly for some, but chiefly because they rightfully lost the trust of so many. It's very difficult to earn that institutional trust back, and unfortunately, vaccine science is now contested because of the dogmatic, condescending rhetoric of 2020/2021.
I think the fallout was more that those who were silent felt more comfortable speaking up when others so vocally shared their platform, and prominent Catholics were also speaking out.
I've thought a lot recently that there is a LOT of harm done when institutions prove themselves untrustworthy. I've seen political analysts talk about the decline of high trust societies and it isn't even necessarily that the trust was ever warranted, but the lack of it furthers decline and increases instability.
I'm a parent now with a wide range of ages. I know enough to know that the standard medical advice for some things is false or misleading a lot of the time. I know public health and the development of medicine as a discipline already had a lot of dark spots prior to 2020. That also doesn't necessarily make them wrong about everything, either. It stinks as a parent to be told, constantly, from all sides, that every choice we make is bad, and isn't it obvious what the right thing is, when it isn't obvious at all, even if you're an educated and intelligent person, and why can't we stop being so cavalier and heartless about our children or other people's children?
It really stinks to get a whiff of that from the Church. I would be so discouraged if I was getting this from my children's school, and yep, I would probably pull them to homeschool. Which would make me even more suspect to some, and round and round we go.
I appreciate this article as a sensitive handling of a very difficult and fraught topic.
I recently saw a list of the vaccine course for children before 1984 (my spouse and I both were born prior 1984) and the current course. You'd think it miraculous that anybody born before 1984 has made it this far. The risk of HPV, for instance, is extremely low (almost non-existent if you're not active) so why get a shot to reduce the odds from 0.004% to 0.0035%. I don't get it.
To be quite honest, part of the reason my children are still vaccinated is because it's easier to do it than not, and I haven't encountered the sorts of situations that would immediately put a hard stop to it like some of the parents in this article. But my assessment of our risk suggests that it really isn't a necessary thing for us in most cases. What has kept us going is that I don't want to jump through the hoops to file for an exemption, find a new pediatrician or network of providers that are cool with it and can refer us to specialists when necessary who will also be cool with it, and other hassles. At this point, the actual getting sick part is not a huge consideration. I'm not necessarily proud of that, but I'll be honest about it.
The social pressure I'm sure is a big part of the point. But I do have to laugh at the suggestion that parents who want to opt out are all uneducated, lazy rubes. It is so, so, so much easier to just do what everyone else is doing and not stick your neck out. Again, I'm not saying there aren't people who mislead with poor data or capitalize on mistrust to make a quick buck. But uneducated and lazy doesn't describe any of the parents I know in real life who make this choice, even though I haven't also made it.
We started vaccinating for everything and then stopped due to health problems. I wish I were braver and smarter on the beginning and didn’t do it at all. Fortunately, we live in a state that allows religious exemptions and it has been relatively easy to obtain these both in private (non-catholic) and public schools. Finding a pediatrician was more challenging, but I did find one (the only one in the area) that allows for parental choice. Unfortunately, pediatricians have a financial interest in getting a high percentage of children in their practice vaccinated (there are bonuses tied into it). There is a big incentive for everyone to dismiss any problems due to vaccination program. The specialists ask but do not give us any grief and don’t lecture us, I think everyone leaves the vaccine enforcement to pediatricians.
What struck me the most was not diocesan policies, but the “we don’t have to tell you why.” I would guess it’s the legal advice to say nothing, but it’s really sad.
You'd think that for a K-12 educational organization to tell you to go against your doctor's advice, some level of explanation could be expected.
The school has a right to make rules, and their customers have a right to have nothing to do with a school that enforces them in such a faceless-DMV-bureaucrat fashion. It's the sort of approach that might apply well beyond the current topic.
1) I wonder how many students have died from these increased measles “outbreaks”? I’ll tell you: negligible at best. People saw measles as a kids’ disease of mostly inconvenience, like chicken pox. A number of these vaccines are purely for convenience, and some aren’t even vaccines at all, like the Vitamin K shot. We need to have the maturity in this discussion to recognize that not all diseases, and not all vaccines, are the same.
2) the irony that a Catholic school won’t accept a state’s approved religious exemption
3) I’m so exhausted with overtures to “Catholic Social Teaching™️” which is just very simple unrigorous theology that is little more than Post-War Western Liberalism with a Catholic veneer, and often at odds with the entire Catholic Intellectual Tradition up until the 20th Century. 90% of the time, it’s utter bunk.
Negligible? Even setting aside the thousands of people who have died in various measles outbreaks in Africa in recent years, there were 83 deaths in American Samoa's 2019 outbreak. The vast majority of them were children. Call it negligible if you want, but that's more than Columbine, Sandy Hook, and Parkland combined.
This is misleading, too. Why go to examples of measles mortality from developing countries when we are discussing policy in the US? Available treatments and medical care, hygiene, and nutrition play into the severity of something like measles and there’s just no way that the death rate of measles in American Samoa should dictate policy in the US.
Disclaimer because apparently it needs to be said: stating the above does not mean that I think the deaths of people in the developing world don’t matter or are acceptable. They are just simply not relevant to discuss as statistics in a conversation about vaccine policy in American schools.
I picked American Samoa because it's American. Poorer than the 50 states, yes, but still a part of our country. And vastly wealthier than, say, the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Okay, fine, but 1) a developing region being annexed by a developed one does not automatically make the demographic situation identical and 2) why not compare apples to apples by using United States (contiguous 48) stats to discuss a domestic situation in the United States? It paints a more accurate picture.
In a discussion like this, it is often about assessing risk and weighing the consequences of different decisions, rather than making a statement on whether the death of a particular child is “acceptable.”
That is the virtue of looking at and evaluating the statistics and the risk factors of different decisions. Everyone has (should have) the right to do so. A family may look at the varicella vaccine and weigh the relative risk of chicken pox (risk: low mortality, relatively, but maybe not actually zero, as you point out) versus the relative risk involved in getting the vaccine and make a rational decision. Different families may reach different decisions Much in the same way as you and I weigh the risk of getting in a car with our children (risk level: non-zero mortality!) and decide that actually, it is worth taking on some amount of risk in order to get where we are trying to go. It would be irrational to claim, “driving a car is irresponsible because the stakes are the death of children.”
The risk of a life threatening reaction to a vaccine is about one in a million (not an exaggeration). The risk of death from measles for a child is one in a thousand. Risk of death from varicella (chickenpox) is one in sixty thousand. I think this school should have made an exception because of the child's reaction to a vaccine. But exceptions should be rare. Vaccines do rely on herd immunity and parents that are led astray by grifters, claiming that the risk of vaccination versus the sickness itself are equal will lead to the deaths of more children.
The math may seem simple, but I think the statistics can be used in an incredibly misleading way. I was recently at the pediatrician's and in the waiting room there was a giant poster about the HPV vaccine (helpfully made by the manufacturer) and the statistics were shocking, to be sure - but they provided no context. What does 1 in so many people mean - is that worldwide, or the US? What's the male/female split? By age group? What about access to clean water, emergency medical services, adequate nutrition? What about behavior? What about other health conditions? What's the risk to me or my children based on our own health and demographics? It could very well be a lot less than they say (or it could be more.) The risk is not spread randomly and equally. Some people might very well think they'd rather take their chances that they might come into contact with a disease, rather than certainly injecting a vaccine.
I am not sure what I think about herd immunity anymore. Diseases rise and fall sometimes without any human intervention at all. The big push for Covid vaccines depended on this argument or a variant of it, and it turned out to be untrue, and at worst known to be untrue but they said it anyway. It is rational that people begin to mistrust what institutions tell them when they are wrong or they lie. There are grifters, to be sure, but they don't have to be on the sidelines. Sometimes they make policy.
Well stated. Not to mention that death from vaccine reaction is not the only thing at play- other injuries occur at a more prevalent rate than death, full stop. (Yes, there are complications from various illnesses that are more nuanced than just death as well! That’s why this is not a black and white discussion and why reasonable people may come to differing conclusions here based on prudential judgment.)
So you would advocate not driving vehicles, correct? Motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of death for children. In fact, the only disease that even shows up on the list of leading childhood causes of death are cancer and heart disease.
The pushback on vaccines is almost entirely the result of the dogmatic, condescending, & Orwellian bullying of parents around the time of Covid. It's not the Church's fault, but I do hope that even if they choose to uphold those vaccine standards, the individual schools will treat the concerns of the parents with kindness, respect, and curiosity. Parent's rights are important in Catholic social teaching, and I think the bioethicist made that clear alongside obligations to the common good.
Thank you, JD and Michelle, for your thoughtful and respectful tone. I just wish...that both groups would listen to the legitimate concerns on either side, and that there could be a transparent solution. The real problem here isn't the Church's response (well, other than cancelling Masses during Covid, but I digress), it's the dehumanizing way that these conversations are conducted. It's how pervasive comments like this were in 2021, "For the unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death. For themselves, their families and the hospitals that will soon be overwhelmed." It's a reminder of how important it is not to abuse institutional trust, and that analogy can be extended to the Church, too.
There seems to be an assumption that dioceses should establish mandatory policies regarding vaccines that every Catholic school must follow. I disagree with that premise. As the article itself indicates reasonable people can disagree over what is the best policy, and there is certainly no Catholic or Biblical teaching mandating one policy or another. Pastors, principals and others involved in running parish and other Catholic schools are perfectly capable of what is best for their particular school. If different parishes in the same area have different policies that is a good thing. Parents who prefer safety over individual accommodations can choose a school who has that policy and parents who want individual accommodations will choose a school that makes these accommodations. For this and many other issues, dioceses should not treat parishes like hotel or restaurant franchises that all have to have to do everything the same way.
I do think it’s worth noting that both vaccines directly discussed here (varicella and MMR) are ones that were developed using fetal remains. There is definitely a legitimate moral objection to taking those, even without additional health or reaction concerns. I think a less dogmatic and more nuanced discussion of this topic is so needed so thanks for this.
"Developed using fetal remains" is an incredibly misleading way to frame that issue. Those vaccines were tested on a cell line developed from fetal remains decades ago. There is even debate in the scientific community if it was an elective abortion or medically-managed miscarriage. There is no fetal tissue in any vaccine, full-stop.
At best it is remote, remote cooperation with evil from an abortion literally decades ago. We make choices every day that directly support the evil of abortion in the present and future-- to use that excuse, one had better be consistent in their life. For example, no more using cell phones or computers, as most tech and software companies directly pay for abortions for their employees, supported by our dollars.
To use the "developed using fetal remains" excuse is uninformed at best, and hollow hypocrisy at worst.
I'm glad you touched on San Antonio, but this is a HUGE problem in Texas. The regulations are set by the TCCB, and it's honestly a mess for families, and it particularly effects the top Catholic schools in my area. I'm in Houston, and I know that D/FW area also has huge problems with not allowing faithful into schools because they aren't vaccinated. So many families are left with homeschooling if they want their Catholic Faith to be integrated into their children's education. As a note, we homeschool by choice, but if something happens to me, what are the options for my kids? Public school or to jump through hoops for medical exemptions for all my children?
I think it's funny that people who are opposed to children unvaccinated in their schools are unwilling to speak up. Here we have the opposite problem. It's a shame people are made to feel less because of medical complications from vaccines. I'm so proud of some of our clergy who have fought for these people and called physicians in order to find ones even willing to write medical exemptions, as most aren't. One example was a family moved from out of state where the doctor had witnessed the reaction, and TCCB required an in state doctor, who said they needed to put the kid in a life threatening state in order to write the exemption. They finally found a doctor willing to call the previous out of state physician, and then write an exemption. Do the bishops realize the lengths people are going to? California's medical exemption requirements are worse, but they are pretty bad here, and law makers won't change it since public schools allow several types of vaccine objections.
I've met so many families in bad positions due to our own situation. I have had one child with a severe enough vaccine reaction for a medical exception (at least for that one vaccine), and another who until recently also qualified for an MMR vaccine exception until Merek recently changed their insert on who should not receive the vaccine (I think doctors would still write her one). I have 2 children with severe enough issues to warrant exceptions, but, can I get them for all my kids? Texas law states that in order for a medical exemption, the child has to react. So while a doctor would write exemptions for my 2 kids, what about the ones who haven't reacted. Should I be forced to subject them to the same harm my others suffered? Why, when we've seen such issues in our family, would I subject my kids to these vaccines? No sane person would! So many families are in my shoes where they can get a vaccine exception for one kid, but not for the rest. One doctor suggested showing the closeness of the DNA and arguing that the child shouldn't get it due to likely reactions, but who knows if the TCCB would accept that. We might try that route if it ever becomes necessary, but should I be put in a position to jump through hoops? (P.S. we also avoid food dye 😉)
Lastly, what I found missing from the article is the parents who at their own expense fly to Japan to vaccinate their kids simply to send them to Catholic schools. Perhaps this is just a Texas thing? The vaccines are so much safer so the data corresponds with the common good without the harm and consequences the vaccines here have on the population. Why don't the bishops care enough about the common good to promote a change to these vaccines being readily available in the USA for the common good? We can let doctors inform and people choose which vaccines their patients want. I imagine few would choose Merek's combination MMR over the Japanese versions.
Based on the headline, I thought the article might discuss a different issue — claiming a religious exemption to validate being unvaccinated, when it’s really just that one “doesn’t like what’s in them,” as one acquaintance told me. I think one should be able to choose, with one’s doctor, to delay or skip vaccines when medically necessary or if one has a religious objection, but I think more and more often these days, people watch a YouTube video and just don’t want to get them. I don’t think that’s a good reason but have encountered it a surprising number of times in my conservative, Catholic area.
If concern about the contents of a pharmaceutical product is not a good reason to question whether one ought to be compelled to consume that product, I don’t know what is a good reason! Perhaps the objectionableness of the contents doesn’t stand up to further scrutiny, but I think it makes sense to ask questions- especially as the manufacturers are not liable for defective products.
There are avenues of redress for true vaccine injuries, which I know do happen, which include monetary damages being given to families. It doesn’t necessarily come from the manufacturers, but it is available.
Well, holding the companies themselves financially accountable would lead to other problems like bankruptcy and then not being able to develop any other vaccines or medicines. Holding them directly accountable would lead to many other issues; this middle way seems like the best option.
My concern is this: if the companies are not liable, what is the incentive for them to do the proper due diligence when it comes to testing their products for safety? What would it look like if, for instance, car seat manufacturers were not liable for defects in their products? Bankruptcy of vaccine manufacturers is definitely not a problem as the system stands currently, THAT is for sure! lol! So they solved that problem, absolutely.
I think the YouTube video jab is unfair. At present my children are all vaccinated with what's legally required in my state, but I do have an interest in non-conventional and alternative medicines. That interest started as a response to how hard contraception is pushed as a matter of public health policy and by individual doctors, which is probably pretty familiar to most practicing Catholic women. It isn't hard to go from that and wonder what else they might be wrong about.
The public health response to Covid also jarred a lot of people out of complacency. I'd love to just be able to trust everything the CDC says, or that doctors say, but I can't unknow what I have learned, and that's going to affect my decision making. If they use more force, I get more suspicious.
It was literally the reason given to me by an acquaintance; her reason for not vaccinating her children was that she didn’t like what was in them based on a YouTube video she had seen. I asked if she claimed the religious objection because of fetal stem cell lines from aborted fetuses, and she said, “no, I just don’t like what’s in them.” And I think that’s why some states are trying to eliminate the religious exemption, because it’s being abused.
If I don’t like what’s in a food product, I choose not to eat that food product. Maybe I could come up with a more eloquent way to say “I don’t like what’s in it,” but it seems silly or foolish to willingly consume something that has ingredients I deem to be harmful or suspicious. It is a shame we don’t have a pharmaceutical industry (or an actual food industry, but off topic…) that isn’t more transparent and forthcoming about the ingredients of their products.
I agree that the term “religious exemption” is sometimes misleading or inappropriate which is why I believe “conscience exemption” might be a more fitting category name. After all, one mustn’t be religious to object to fetal cell line use in vaccine derivation…
The COVID jab made all of this chatter mainstream. For many, when they hear CDC, WHO, White House, Vatican, etc... they have lost just about all integrity on this subject. Unfortunately, I'm not sure there is an institution that commands respect on this topic. It's just a free-for-all for everyone to hate on everyone.
My two cents: If your vaccine works so well, then, you should be fully protected and carefree on whether or not someone else took the same jab.
I can understand that concern. Babies can be supported through a nutrient rich dietary foods such as sweet potatoes that are rich in Vitamin A. Vitamin A is shown to be supportive.
I have children in Catholic schools in the Archdiocese of Washington. On multiple occasions we have requested religious objection exemptions from unethical vaccines because they are made using cells or genetic material of aborted babies. We have been denied every time. Denying this exemption is a policy that began under "Uncle Ted" McCarrick. I have been informed by insiders that ADW as an unwritten policy not to grant such exemptions to Catholics. I suppose the logic is that Catholics are technically not forbidden from receiving such vaccines, and therefore are not under the pain of sin when they receive them. But as this article pointed out, an individual's moral standards could be higher than what is absolutely required.
What is especially a shame to me, is how little known this problem is. The bishops have an opportunity to inform their flocks about the ethical problems involved in the manufacturing of these vaccines. By doing this they could also be putting pressure on vaccine manufacturers to start making ethical vaccines. But instead, the bishops are sweeping under the rug everyone who cares about this problem.
It's not just about parents and individuals who opt out of such vaccines to protect their own conscience. The inaction and decisions of the bishops contribute to and perpetuate the culture of death for everyone who is involved in the manufacturing of vaccines and public health decisions.
"Developed using fetal remains" is an incredibly misleading way to frame that issue. Those vaccines were tested on a cell line developed from fetal remains decades ago. There is even debate in the scientific community if it was an elective abortion or medically-managed miscarriage. There is no fetal tissue in any vaccine, full-stop.
At best it is remote, remote cooperation with evil from an abortion literally decades ago. We make choices every day that directly support the evil of abortion in the present and future-- to use that excuse, one had better be consistent in their life. For example, no more using cell phones or computers, as most tech and software companies directly pay for abortions for their employees, supported by our dollars. There are many, many more important issues the bishops can address to combat abortion rather than focusing on vaccines.
The Varicella vaccine contains DNA and protein belonging to an aborted child who is only known by his laboratory label, "MRC-5." The MMR vaccine contains entire cells belonging to an aborted child similarly known as "WI-38." These things are listed on the ingredients of the vaccines. Again, the vaccines *contain* whole cells or genetic material belonging to those aborted children. The material has descended from the mutilated baby's cells. They were not merely "tested on" a cell line.
The argument that this is an abortion that happened decades ago is not only dismissive of the worth of those aborted children, it is overlooking the implications of what will continue to happen if we overlook this problem, or, indeed, bully people into complying with it.
I hope it is clear that this is very different than buying from companies who help employees pay for their own abortions.
They do not contain DNA and protein belonging to an aborted child. That is a common antivax talking point. Do you have any sources for that claim?
They could contain DNA from a cell line that originated decades ago from an aborted fetus, but those are not the same. For example, is a cheek swab culture "me" in the same sense of my physical being? Would destroying that culture be harming or destroying "me"? Certainly not. HeLa cells have been used in a majority of medical breakthroughs in the past decade, and were also unethically sourced-- yet I do not see any pushback on the many discoveries from them.
Even the article you linked (which is 20 years old and has been updated several times), does not mention your claim of "injecting cells and genetic material belonging to an aborted child into our bodies" as that is not how the vaccine development process works.
All guidance from the Vatican or USCCB mentions that this is at most remote material cooperation in evil, and we are still obligated to use these vaccines to protect the common good if no alternative is available. To forgo necessary vaccines because of this remote cooperation in evil is itself wrong, and no guidance from church authority has said otherwise. For example: https://www.usccb.org/resources/Vatican%20CDF%20statement%20on%20COVID%20vaccines.pdf
By typing these responses on our phones/laptops, we are financially supporting companies that use those funds to provide abortions. That is a much greater degree of remote material cooperation than taking a vaccine necessary to the common good (while still using our voices to ask for better alternatives, of course).
You can find both MRC-5 and WI-38 listed on the ingredients of the vaccines.
These cells are essentially stolen goods, harvested after a murder.
Yes HeLa cells were also taken unethically, but not after a murder. And there has been for more publicity decrying that process than there has been for the murders that led to these cell lines.
It is my impression from the guidance that we are released from the obligation to avoid these unethical vaccines if it is a grave inconvenience. But that does not mean we are obligated to take the unethical vaccine. And as this article pointed out, "There’s a strong tradition in Catholicism that people must not be required to do something they consider to be sinful in order to participate in an organization."
I think the article does a good job explaining that people can in good conscience come to different conclusions on this matter. I don't intend to convince others that it's wrong to take the vaccine. I just hope not to be bullied into taking it or be told that I'm doing wrong by not taking it.
The document you cited seems to contradict your statement that it is "wrong" not to take a "necessary" vaccine. The document states, "practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral
Obligation..."
Notwithstanding the obligation to avoid spreading of the disease by other means, I don't understand where it says it's wrong to opt out of a vaccine. Please correct me if I missed something or misunderstood your point.
Just a reminder, folks, of The Pillar's commenting policy: Christian charity.
We believe that we can talk about serious subjects with charity and decency toward our interlocutors. Let's all examine ourselves to ensure we're holding ourselves to that standard.
Vax policy aside, if it were truly a "right" of all Catholics to send their kids to parochial school, they'd have to cost a lot less, provide special ed, etc. But they don't.
The only way Catholic education was ever affordable in the past was because you didn’t have to pay nuns brothers separate competitive salaries and benefits packages. Don’t blame the schools today for the fact that there’s no nuns anymore. “Affordable” Catholic education is an illusion (except, of course, if you homeschool!)
Homeschooling is only affordable if your time has no value.
Exactly! As a father of two toddlers, “my time” has no value. The priority is always towards the service of my family. As it turns out, once you have kids, things are no longer “about you”
Very insightful, thank you!
I also have children.
Ah yes, hence my compliment to your profound point!
Very funny.
I'm going to assume, in that case, that you don't work for a wage or salary. Otherwise, your time literally has value.
So money is more valuable than your children?
I'm certainly not paying you to watch them!
Not an answer.
You, internet stranger, do not deserve one.
There are unique sacrifices involved, yes. What do you mean by that remark?
For this exact reason, homeschooling is not "free"
This is a bigger discussion, but there are choices that can make Catholic education decidedly more affordable -- this is experienced in places in which parishes customarily contribute a large % of offertory to the school, considering it the largest apostolate and the lifeblood of the parish.
I'd like to know more about where this idea that Catholic education is a "right" came from, actually
I still have my fingers crossed that the ~ 2 packs of second hand cigarettes I smoked working the parish bingo every Wednesday night - for ~ 50% of my Catholic High School tuition 🙏 - won’t come back to bite me. Either way my Catholic high school experience with the OFM’s deep in the heart of Pittsburgh’s Steel Valley was a profound life changer for me 💪 🙏. Maybe my 1/2 mile time in track would have been better but I could close bingo financials down to the nearest nickel before I graduated high school 💪
As a man with a severely cognitively disabled brother and as a previous Catholic School teacher: providing special ed is out of reach of Catholic schools as a practical matter. The priest in charge of my school really wanted to start a program (which would have been the first Catholic special ed program in the state) but the costs were just impossible to raise. Several million upfront for the dedicated, specialized facilities and space, plus around $40k per year per student (compared to our tuition of about $4k per year or, in the public schools, $16k per student in state spending per student).
All this to say, yes, it would be wonderful if Catholic schools provided special ed. But half a million per year to educate one classroom of twelve children would rival the cost of a whole 100+ student middle school combined. It's not a matter of will to do it -- many pastors and teachers want to see it happen -- but of the specialized costs that come with serving a highly diverse high-need community.
I'm sure what you write is true. All the more reason to question those who want to abolish the Dept of Ed and the services they provide for disabled students, since it's practically impossible to raise private funds to do the same even when the will is there.
I am heartened to see what seems like a growing desire to accommodate special needs where possible; and I agree with you about the the infeasibility of providing the level of services public schools are legally obligated to provide (barring major restructuring of how schools are financed)
But I have also seen Catholic schools that are so used to thinking "we can't accommodate special needs" that they refuse accommodations that are free and very minor, simply because they don't want to open the door to doing ~anything at all (like, "this kid is still getting used to operating their wheelchair; if they come in quietly and non disruptively, is it okay if they're a few minutes late to class?" --> "No, there's exactly 5 minutes transition time between classes; any kid who is late gets detention; if we start giving exceptions, how could we enforce any school discipline at all??")
Thankfully, our principal was already pretty reasonable for accommodations like that. Part of the purpose (we felt) of having a special education program is to teach the general student body charity towards people with different needs from their own. That has to start from the literal adults in the room saying "they need this, so in the virtue of justice we will give it to them". So yeah, it definitely begins with extra transition time and not making a big deal about absolute, identical conformity from every student on things like that.
I worked as a teacher's aide for handicapped students for years. Other than being wheelchair accessible, having separate bathrooms with tables and showers as well as toilet, and having a higher number of staff than a regular classroom, it wasn't all that different from a regulat classroom. I doubt it was as expensive per student as you claim.
The things you describe are for for physically handicapped students -- which we already served and had accommodations for. We were looking at Down's, Autism, Intellectual Disability, and other groups that require specialists. So that 40k figure is looking at physical therapy, speech therapy, social skills work, and the rest. My own brother cost our school district $55k per year, and that's a figure I know for sure.
If it's of interest, here's what Mrs. Flynn and I do in our spare time:
https://firefoundationdenver.org/
That is definitely of interest -- I'll be passing this on to a few people, I think.
Also might be of interest perhaps in a different way as a diocesan model: in the diocese of Pittsburgh, there is something called the St. Anthony's Program and it is wonderful. It's for students with special needs and is an option that allows them to integrate in a typical Catholic school, but with specialized life skill classes, etc. https://stanthonykids.org/
Perhaps part of the explanation, which hopefully the MD involved knows, is that eczema can be treated (like mine) with a topical cream, either steroidal or non-steroidal.
https://nationaleczema.org/treatments/topicals/
(Hopefully RFK Jr, our quack in chief, won’t shut this website down too.)
If the parent and doctor came to a reasonable conclusion that the varicella vaccine was a potential trigger for eczema, I don't see how offering that it can be treated with medications is an acceptable response. The best medicine is not needing any at all. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the mentality that has ruled the medical establishment for a while where we're getting medications to treat side-effects of other medications to treat side effects of other medications and so on.
Long term or repeated use of steroids (even topical) is not risk free. Additionally, severe eczema is typically not treated with topical medication if it is over a significant surface area of the body. The oral or injectable medications used come with their own risks.
Yeah, that entertaining train of medications to treat the side effects of the other medications starts eating its own tail at some point. I think the rule of thumb is that if there's more than 6, you don't have to ask if there are drug interactions or a circle of side effects. There definitely is.
Asking why the child is having a reaction, and whether she has some mild subclinical problem that, when a vaccine is added, overtaxes her system, might be a good idea.
Do you seriously think that the Clark family did not explore applying a topical cream to their child's eczema and jumped directly to "vaccines bad"?
The story of my child is eerily similar to the story of Clark's daughter. Full body severe eczema, food allergies to almost everything. We also came to the conclusion of stopping all vaccines when he was 18 months old. Consenting to giving him all those vaccines when he was so little is my biggest regret as a parent. I will now always wonder if he would be healthier without them. I could write a long post about all the problems and how we came to the conclusion of vaccines being a big contributing factor (in consultation with an immunologist), but I am not going to do so, as those who are convinced that vaccines cannot possibly cause any problems whatsoever are not open to listening. Fortunately, I found a good private (non-Catholic) school for my child that accepts our religious exemption. And, if the choice would be between him getting caught up on all his vaccines or homeschooling, I would not even think about it - it would be homeschooling.
I listen and I pray for your child. Thankfully you did all of the appropriate things, consulting with an immunologist etc. My fear is the brave new world in which many may NOT do the appropriate steps you took. Best practices don’t seem like they may stand the test of time in the final quarter of my life. And all I can do is pray for people like you. ☮️ 🙏
Just wanted to say I appreciate your tone in this response. Truly synodal ;) and compassionate.
Right because if anything has been proven true, it's that you should totally trust Pfizer, Moderna, etc. They're just altruistic companies operating for the good of humanity.
Who is outdoing them? What is your solution to accompany the anti-pharma rant?
To cease taking unnecessary vaccines of which may exist to enrich pharmaceutical companies. Again, if you take a look at the vaccine schedules pre-1984 versus post 1983, it is a wonder any boomer or gen xer walks the earth. What is the necessity for all of these new vaccines?
Sigh...with all the important things we have to fight about, why are there so many vax absolutists out there? Is there risk associated with not vaccinating? Yes there is a tiny risk. The risk to the those who are themselves vaccinated is even smaller.
Look at it this way, is it more risky to your child's welfare for them to go to school with those who are unvaccinated or with those from single parent households? Those who don't take their faith seriously? Those who set a bad example with what they eat? Social media. Etc.
I know what I'm saying is something of a logical fallacy, but the risk is just so miniscule, and it's exhausting to fight about things that just don't really matter just because we can. Every action has a reaction. When you force anti-vaxxers to the margins, you lose them in the fight for the things that really matter in this life. I have many anti-vaxxer friends and just about every one of them is raising a wonderful family.
Just grant these people wide exemptions and move on with your life. Even if you think they're dead wrong. Remember, you're probably wrong about a lot of things too
"is it more risky to your child's welfare for them to go to school with those who are unvaccinated or with those from single parent households? " In a word, yes.
I suspect you place a higher value on the flesh than the soul. A school filled with a high percentage of single parent homes will suffer the maladies that come along with such a scenario. Less discipline. Increased poverty. Less religious. Etc.
Might want to ease up on the pearl clutching
It's not so much pearl clutching as it is statistics.
Ok bro, enjoy the Catholic bubble, where no one sins.
What's funny is that I'm taking the live and let live position and you're accusing me of being sanctimonious. My point is not that we avoid single parent families. It's actually the exact opposite - we all live around and with single parent families. All of us accept risks every day. Why single out the tiny risk of anti-vaxxers when you accept much larger risks all the time?
Single parent families are not a risk to you.
It's well documented that tons of maladies come along with single parent homes. Most are perfectly fine or even absolutely wonderful. Statistically speaking they're much more likely than two parent homes to have a lot of issues. If you had a school full of single parent families like is common in many places, yes it is absolutely a risk to every child there because our children are formed not just by their parents but by the communities in which they live. The only reason I brought up that example is because it is so common and of course we all accept it.
Whatever, dude. As I said, enjoy the bubble. Real life is a place to encounter God, too.
I'm not sure if you completely miss the point or if you're having an argument with statistics
Real life is a place to encounter God. Hmm...yeah...I like that. So at what age will you purchase some cocaine for your children to try? When do you give them their first beer? Age three or four? How about sitting down for a pornographic movie...I mean...be real...they're going to be exposed to it sometime, why not under your watchful eye?
Wow that's rich. Really rich. What disease are you concerned with your vaccinated child catching?
Literally whatever creep germs you're carrying, dude
Well if they are vaccinated there is nothing to fear?
> Sigh...with all the important things we have to fight about, why are there so many vax absolutists out there? Is there risk associated with not vaccinating? Yes there is a tiny risk. The risk to the those who are themselves vaccinated is even smaller.
For some diseases, the risk is significant. If you don't have 95% of the population vaccinated against measles, you risk seeing outbreaks among the community. Measles used to kill millions of people each year worldwide. Even if that's not likely to happen today, a community where even 10-20% didn't get a measles vaccine could lead to numerous deaths, even among people who did get vaccinated.
The death rate from measles drops precipitously if they aren't deficient in vitamin A. Which is why it's very unlikely today for people to die of it. There's a known, viable treatment.
Very unlikely? Apparently the recent outbreak in Texas and the surrounding area has 2 deaths for 355 cases. I know that's only about a half a percent, but I'd rather not play with those odds.
And even if you don't die, if getting the measles is anything like the chickenpox I had as a kid, I'd much rather avoid it. Unfortunately the chickenpox vaccine came around a few years too late for me. So I had to miss a week and a half of school, itching miserably, and I still have the scars on my face to prove it.
There's a correlation between those for whom vaccines do not work well, and those who are particularly likely to die of disease. Before deciding those odds apply to every child, it would be nice to know whether they were perfectly healthy children, or whether they already had a serious illness, known or unknown. The annual rate of death from measles when practically every child was getting it was in the 400-500 range. That's considerably less than half a percent.
As far as getting sick goes, yeah, it's unpleasant. That doesn't mean the preventative is always worth it. After all, we can draw a direct line of comparison between your week itching over chicken pox, and the longer-term eczema the child in the original article was itching over. There are also people who die from vaccinations. Live virus vaccines have been known to get people sick (most modern cases of polio come from vaccinations). Risk analysis actually requires looking at both sides, and it's generally good to incorporate the particular facts for the particular person.
Now there is an easy way to remove the religious objections of a lot of people very quickly. The MMR vaccine in the US was developed with the use of aborted fetal cells. There is another measles vaccine developed and used in Japan for several decades, to present day, that did not use them. It is not approved in the US, due to economic protectionism. The moral objection could be easily removed by certain people being less greedy.
The funniest part of the measles debate for me is that my child got full blown measles as a side effect of the MMR vaccine (high fever, rash, the whole thing...). I know of at least one other child who also got measles after the MMR shot. It is not super-uncommon. So, the argument of getting a vaccine to avoid getting sick does not quite work...
I also grew up in a country that, at that time, did not use MMR or varicella vaccines. Got all of these diseases as a child. All the children I knew got them. I am not aware of any single one of the children in my family/school/church circles dying or having any serious side effects as a result of measles (or mumps or rubella or varicella). If those were such a horrible diseases killing millions of children, I should have known at least one dead child.
I believe the numbers reported from Texas are skewed. First, it is likely they had more than 355 cases (for example, I did not take my child to doctor with measles as I knew what it was and could treat it at home - there is nothing else that the doctor could have done for us). Second, you do not know the overall health condition of those who died, there may have been other contributing factors.
You're probably right that there may be more than 355 cases. But the historical data are clear. Your personal anecdotes don't override the statistics. Yes, measles had worse outcomes in poorer countries. But American children died of measles before the vaccine was developed, and presumably they died in just about every other country, too.
The historical data is clear on the fact that the childhood mortality decreased predominantly thanks to better hygiene and nutrition. This also applies to the decrease in mortality to communicable diseases such as measles, as I have observed in my home country in the 1980ies when essentially no one died of measles despite the lack of vaccination program.
What's the death rate for being exposed to single parenthood? Sheesh!
Of the soul or the body?
Oh please.
Do you believe that what's most important in life is reducing the risk of sickness to as close to zero as possible?
I believe it's important to accept that when we're talking about sinners, we're talking about us, not them.
As a percent of people affected by somebody who commits a violent act? Probably darn near 100% of those crimes are committed by people from broken homes. What's the death rate of being exposed to measles? Chicken pox?
I'm sure you never come in contact with the riffraff, so you have nothing to worry about.
The "tiny" risk is often death. And as more and more children go unvaccinated more children will die.
The whole concept of vaccination depends on herd immunity as no vaccine is 100% effective. Based on that, one off exceptions should have little-to-no impact on the herd’s immunity.
That said, once you reach a certain threshold (depending on class/school size, etc.) returns diminish significantly. So if “one offs” become “most students” then there’s a deeper problem to address.
I think the problem comes almost exclusively from the Covid era. Sure, there have always been people who were hesitant about vaccines, but the handling of Covid was so dogmatic, Orwellian, and downright threatening (who can forget Biden's comments in December 2021?) that people started questioning things. Plus, don't forget there was a whole string of sudden collapses and heart issues surrounding those who received Covid vaccines and were otherwise healthy.
Covid was the worst thing to happen to the medical community in a very long time, not just because it was deadly for some, but chiefly because they rightfully lost the trust of so many. It's very difficult to earn that institutional trust back, and unfortunately, vaccine science is now contested because of the dogmatic, condescending rhetoric of 2020/2021.
I think the fallout was more that those who were silent felt more comfortable speaking up when others so vocally shared their platform, and prominent Catholics were also speaking out.
I've thought a lot recently that there is a LOT of harm done when institutions prove themselves untrustworthy. I've seen political analysts talk about the decline of high trust societies and it isn't even necessarily that the trust was ever warranted, but the lack of it furthers decline and increases instability.
I'm a parent now with a wide range of ages. I know enough to know that the standard medical advice for some things is false or misleading a lot of the time. I know public health and the development of medicine as a discipline already had a lot of dark spots prior to 2020. That also doesn't necessarily make them wrong about everything, either. It stinks as a parent to be told, constantly, from all sides, that every choice we make is bad, and isn't it obvious what the right thing is, when it isn't obvious at all, even if you're an educated and intelligent person, and why can't we stop being so cavalier and heartless about our children or other people's children?
It really stinks to get a whiff of that from the Church. I would be so discouraged if I was getting this from my children's school, and yep, I would probably pull them to homeschool. Which would make me even more suspect to some, and round and round we go.
I appreciate this article as a sensitive handling of a very difficult and fraught topic.
I recently saw a list of the vaccine course for children before 1984 (my spouse and I both were born prior 1984) and the current course. You'd think it miraculous that anybody born before 1984 has made it this far. The risk of HPV, for instance, is extremely low (almost non-existent if you're not active) so why get a shot to reduce the odds from 0.004% to 0.0035%. I don't get it.
To be quite honest, part of the reason my children are still vaccinated is because it's easier to do it than not, and I haven't encountered the sorts of situations that would immediately put a hard stop to it like some of the parents in this article. But my assessment of our risk suggests that it really isn't a necessary thing for us in most cases. What has kept us going is that I don't want to jump through the hoops to file for an exemption, find a new pediatrician or network of providers that are cool with it and can refer us to specialists when necessary who will also be cool with it, and other hassles. At this point, the actual getting sick part is not a huge consideration. I'm not necessarily proud of that, but I'll be honest about it.
The social pressure I'm sure is a big part of the point. But I do have to laugh at the suggestion that parents who want to opt out are all uneducated, lazy rubes. It is so, so, so much easier to just do what everyone else is doing and not stick your neck out. Again, I'm not saying there aren't people who mislead with poor data or capitalize on mistrust to make a quick buck. But uneducated and lazy doesn't describe any of the parents I know in real life who make this choice, even though I haven't also made it.
We started vaccinating for everything and then stopped due to health problems. I wish I were braver and smarter on the beginning and didn’t do it at all. Fortunately, we live in a state that allows religious exemptions and it has been relatively easy to obtain these both in private (non-catholic) and public schools. Finding a pediatrician was more challenging, but I did find one (the only one in the area) that allows for parental choice. Unfortunately, pediatricians have a financial interest in getting a high percentage of children in their practice vaccinated (there are bonuses tied into it). There is a big incentive for everyone to dismiss any problems due to vaccination program. The specialists ask but do not give us any grief and don’t lecture us, I think everyone leaves the vaccine enforcement to pediatricians.
What struck me the most was not diocesan policies, but the “we don’t have to tell you why.” I would guess it’s the legal advice to say nothing, but it’s really sad.
You'd think that for a K-12 educational organization to tell you to go against your doctor's advice, some level of explanation could be expected.
The school has a right to make rules, and their customers have a right to have nothing to do with a school that enforces them in such a faceless-DMV-bureaucrat fashion. It's the sort of approach that might apply well beyond the current topic.
1) I wonder how many students have died from these increased measles “outbreaks”? I’ll tell you: negligible at best. People saw measles as a kids’ disease of mostly inconvenience, like chicken pox. A number of these vaccines are purely for convenience, and some aren’t even vaccines at all, like the Vitamin K shot. We need to have the maturity in this discussion to recognize that not all diseases, and not all vaccines, are the same.
2) the irony that a Catholic school won’t accept a state’s approved religious exemption
3) I’m so exhausted with overtures to “Catholic Social Teaching™️” which is just very simple unrigorous theology that is little more than Post-War Western Liberalism with a Catholic veneer, and often at odds with the entire Catholic Intellectual Tradition up until the 20th Century. 90% of the time, it’s utter bunk.
Negligible? Even setting aside the thousands of people who have died in various measles outbreaks in Africa in recent years, there were 83 deaths in American Samoa's 2019 outbreak. The vast majority of them were children. Call it negligible if you want, but that's more than Columbine, Sandy Hook, and Parkland combined.
This is misleading, too. Why go to examples of measles mortality from developing countries when we are discussing policy in the US? Available treatments and medical care, hygiene, and nutrition play into the severity of something like measles and there’s just no way that the death rate of measles in American Samoa should dictate policy in the US.
Disclaimer because apparently it needs to be said: stating the above does not mean that I think the deaths of people in the developing world don’t matter or are acceptable. They are just simply not relevant to discuss as statistics in a conversation about vaccine policy in American schools.
I picked American Samoa because it's American. Poorer than the 50 states, yes, but still a part of our country. And vastly wealthier than, say, the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Okay, fine, but 1) a developing region being annexed by a developed one does not automatically make the demographic situation identical and 2) why not compare apples to apples by using United States (contiguous 48) stats to discuss a domestic situation in the United States? It paints a more accurate picture.
There is a problem if we start to think that there is an acceptable amount of children's deaths.
In a discussion like this, it is often about assessing risk and weighing the consequences of different decisions, rather than making a statement on whether the death of a particular child is “acceptable.”
But those are the stakes: the death of children.
That is the virtue of looking at and evaluating the statistics and the risk factors of different decisions. Everyone has (should have) the right to do so. A family may look at the varicella vaccine and weigh the relative risk of chicken pox (risk: low mortality, relatively, but maybe not actually zero, as you point out) versus the relative risk involved in getting the vaccine and make a rational decision. Different families may reach different decisions Much in the same way as you and I weigh the risk of getting in a car with our children (risk level: non-zero mortality!) and decide that actually, it is worth taking on some amount of risk in order to get where we are trying to go. It would be irrational to claim, “driving a car is irresponsible because the stakes are the death of children.”
The risk of a life threatening reaction to a vaccine is about one in a million (not an exaggeration). The risk of death from measles for a child is one in a thousand. Risk of death from varicella (chickenpox) is one in sixty thousand. I think this school should have made an exception because of the child's reaction to a vaccine. But exceptions should be rare. Vaccines do rely on herd immunity and parents that are led astray by grifters, claiming that the risk of vaccination versus the sickness itself are equal will lead to the deaths of more children.
The math may seem simple, but I think the statistics can be used in an incredibly misleading way. I was recently at the pediatrician's and in the waiting room there was a giant poster about the HPV vaccine (helpfully made by the manufacturer) and the statistics were shocking, to be sure - but they provided no context. What does 1 in so many people mean - is that worldwide, or the US? What's the male/female split? By age group? What about access to clean water, emergency medical services, adequate nutrition? What about behavior? What about other health conditions? What's the risk to me or my children based on our own health and demographics? It could very well be a lot less than they say (or it could be more.) The risk is not spread randomly and equally. Some people might very well think they'd rather take their chances that they might come into contact with a disease, rather than certainly injecting a vaccine.
I am not sure what I think about herd immunity anymore. Diseases rise and fall sometimes without any human intervention at all. The big push for Covid vaccines depended on this argument or a variant of it, and it turned out to be untrue, and at worst known to be untrue but they said it anyway. It is rational that people begin to mistrust what institutions tell them when they are wrong or they lie. There are grifters, to be sure, but they don't have to be on the sidelines. Sometimes they make policy.
Well stated. Not to mention that death from vaccine reaction is not the only thing at play- other injuries occur at a more prevalent rate than death, full stop. (Yes, there are complications from various illnesses that are more nuanced than just death as well! That’s why this is not a black and white discussion and why reasonable people may come to differing conclusions here based on prudential judgment.)
So you would advocate not driving vehicles, correct? Motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of death for children. In fact, the only disease that even shows up on the list of leading childhood causes of death are cancer and heart disease.
Right, because we don't have to worry about polio, diptheria, etc anymore! Wonder why... 🤔
The pushback on vaccines is almost entirely the result of the dogmatic, condescending, & Orwellian bullying of parents around the time of Covid. It's not the Church's fault, but I do hope that even if they choose to uphold those vaccine standards, the individual schools will treat the concerns of the parents with kindness, respect, and curiosity. Parent's rights are important in Catholic social teaching, and I think the bioethicist made that clear alongside obligations to the common good.
Thank you, JD and Michelle, for your thoughtful and respectful tone. I just wish...that both groups would listen to the legitimate concerns on either side, and that there could be a transparent solution. The real problem here isn't the Church's response (well, other than cancelling Masses during Covid, but I digress), it's the dehumanizing way that these conversations are conducted. It's how pervasive comments like this were in 2021, "For the unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death. For themselves, their families and the hospitals that will soon be overwhelmed." It's a reminder of how important it is not to abuse institutional trust, and that analogy can be extended to the Church, too.
There seems to be an assumption that dioceses should establish mandatory policies regarding vaccines that every Catholic school must follow. I disagree with that premise. As the article itself indicates reasonable people can disagree over what is the best policy, and there is certainly no Catholic or Biblical teaching mandating one policy or another. Pastors, principals and others involved in running parish and other Catholic schools are perfectly capable of what is best for their particular school. If different parishes in the same area have different policies that is a good thing. Parents who prefer safety over individual accommodations can choose a school who has that policy and parents who want individual accommodations will choose a school that makes these accommodations. For this and many other issues, dioceses should not treat parishes like hotel or restaurant franchises that all have to have to do everything the same way.
I do think it’s worth noting that both vaccines directly discussed here (varicella and MMR) are ones that were developed using fetal remains. There is definitely a legitimate moral objection to taking those, even without additional health or reaction concerns. I think a less dogmatic and more nuanced discussion of this topic is so needed so thanks for this.
"Developed using fetal remains" is an incredibly misleading way to frame that issue. Those vaccines were tested on a cell line developed from fetal remains decades ago. There is even debate in the scientific community if it was an elective abortion or medically-managed miscarriage. There is no fetal tissue in any vaccine, full-stop.
At best it is remote, remote cooperation with evil from an abortion literally decades ago. We make choices every day that directly support the evil of abortion in the present and future-- to use that excuse, one had better be consistent in their life. For example, no more using cell phones or computers, as most tech and software companies directly pay for abortions for their employees, supported by our dollars.
To use the "developed using fetal remains" excuse is uninformed at best, and hollow hypocrisy at worst.
I'm glad you touched on San Antonio, but this is a HUGE problem in Texas. The regulations are set by the TCCB, and it's honestly a mess for families, and it particularly effects the top Catholic schools in my area. I'm in Houston, and I know that D/FW area also has huge problems with not allowing faithful into schools because they aren't vaccinated. So many families are left with homeschooling if they want their Catholic Faith to be integrated into their children's education. As a note, we homeschool by choice, but if something happens to me, what are the options for my kids? Public school or to jump through hoops for medical exemptions for all my children?
I think it's funny that people who are opposed to children unvaccinated in their schools are unwilling to speak up. Here we have the opposite problem. It's a shame people are made to feel less because of medical complications from vaccines. I'm so proud of some of our clergy who have fought for these people and called physicians in order to find ones even willing to write medical exemptions, as most aren't. One example was a family moved from out of state where the doctor had witnessed the reaction, and TCCB required an in state doctor, who said they needed to put the kid in a life threatening state in order to write the exemption. They finally found a doctor willing to call the previous out of state physician, and then write an exemption. Do the bishops realize the lengths people are going to? California's medical exemption requirements are worse, but they are pretty bad here, and law makers won't change it since public schools allow several types of vaccine objections.
I've met so many families in bad positions due to our own situation. I have had one child with a severe enough vaccine reaction for a medical exception (at least for that one vaccine), and another who until recently also qualified for an MMR vaccine exception until Merek recently changed their insert on who should not receive the vaccine (I think doctors would still write her one). I have 2 children with severe enough issues to warrant exceptions, but, can I get them for all my kids? Texas law states that in order for a medical exemption, the child has to react. So while a doctor would write exemptions for my 2 kids, what about the ones who haven't reacted. Should I be forced to subject them to the same harm my others suffered? Why, when we've seen such issues in our family, would I subject my kids to these vaccines? No sane person would! So many families are in my shoes where they can get a vaccine exception for one kid, but not for the rest. One doctor suggested showing the closeness of the DNA and arguing that the child shouldn't get it due to likely reactions, but who knows if the TCCB would accept that. We might try that route if it ever becomes necessary, but should I be put in a position to jump through hoops? (P.S. we also avoid food dye 😉)
Lastly, what I found missing from the article is the parents who at their own expense fly to Japan to vaccinate their kids simply to send them to Catholic schools. Perhaps this is just a Texas thing? The vaccines are so much safer so the data corresponds with the common good without the harm and consequences the vaccines here have on the population. Why don't the bishops care enough about the common good to promote a change to these vaccines being readily available in the USA for the common good? We can let doctors inform and people choose which vaccines their patients want. I imagine few would choose Merek's combination MMR over the Japanese versions.
Based on the headline, I thought the article might discuss a different issue — claiming a religious exemption to validate being unvaccinated, when it’s really just that one “doesn’t like what’s in them,” as one acquaintance told me. I think one should be able to choose, with one’s doctor, to delay or skip vaccines when medically necessary or if one has a religious objection, but I think more and more often these days, people watch a YouTube video and just don’t want to get them. I don’t think that’s a good reason but have encountered it a surprising number of times in my conservative, Catholic area.
If concern about the contents of a pharmaceutical product is not a good reason to question whether one ought to be compelled to consume that product, I don’t know what is a good reason! Perhaps the objectionableness of the contents doesn’t stand up to further scrutiny, but I think it makes sense to ask questions- especially as the manufacturers are not liable for defective products.
There are avenues of redress for true vaccine injuries, which I know do happen, which include monetary damages being given to families. It doesn’t necessarily come from the manufacturers, but it is available.
That is true. But it is true that the companies themselves are not liable, which leads to other downstream problems.
Well, holding the companies themselves financially accountable would lead to other problems like bankruptcy and then not being able to develop any other vaccines or medicines. Holding them directly accountable would lead to many other issues; this middle way seems like the best option.
My concern is this: if the companies are not liable, what is the incentive for them to do the proper due diligence when it comes to testing their products for safety? What would it look like if, for instance, car seat manufacturers were not liable for defects in their products? Bankruptcy of vaccine manufacturers is definitely not a problem as the system stands currently, THAT is for sure! lol! So they solved that problem, absolutely.
I think the YouTube video jab is unfair. At present my children are all vaccinated with what's legally required in my state, but I do have an interest in non-conventional and alternative medicines. That interest started as a response to how hard contraception is pushed as a matter of public health policy and by individual doctors, which is probably pretty familiar to most practicing Catholic women. It isn't hard to go from that and wonder what else they might be wrong about.
The public health response to Covid also jarred a lot of people out of complacency. I'd love to just be able to trust everything the CDC says, or that doctors say, but I can't unknow what I have learned, and that's going to affect my decision making. If they use more force, I get more suspicious.
It was literally the reason given to me by an acquaintance; her reason for not vaccinating her children was that she didn’t like what was in them based on a YouTube video she had seen. I asked if she claimed the religious objection because of fetal stem cell lines from aborted fetuses, and she said, “no, I just don’t like what’s in them.” And I think that’s why some states are trying to eliminate the religious exemption, because it’s being abused.
If I don’t like what’s in a food product, I choose not to eat that food product. Maybe I could come up with a more eloquent way to say “I don’t like what’s in it,” but it seems silly or foolish to willingly consume something that has ingredients I deem to be harmful or suspicious. It is a shame we don’t have a pharmaceutical industry (or an actual food industry, but off topic…) that isn’t more transparent and forthcoming about the ingredients of their products.
I agree that the term “religious exemption” is sometimes misleading or inappropriate which is why I believe “conscience exemption” might be a more fitting category name. After all, one mustn’t be religious to object to fetal cell line use in vaccine derivation…
I think this is a nuanced example of the common good vs individual right to decide.
The COVID jab made all of this chatter mainstream. For many, when they hear CDC, WHO, White House, Vatican, etc... they have lost just about all integrity on this subject. Unfortunately, I'm not sure there is an institution that commands respect on this topic. It's just a free-for-all for everyone to hate on everyone.
My two cents: If your vaccine works so well, then, you should be fully protected and carefree on whether or not someone else took the same jab.
What about babies too young for certain vaccinations? Measles vaccine is not administered until 12 mo, for instance.
I can understand that concern. Babies can be supported through a nutrient rich dietary foods such as sweet potatoes that are rich in Vitamin A. Vitamin A is shown to be supportive.
And if I just don't want my kid to get measles at all?
If the mother is vaccinated, the baby is protected via breast feeding. Nobody wants to get measles, that is understandable.
I have children in Catholic schools in the Archdiocese of Washington. On multiple occasions we have requested religious objection exemptions from unethical vaccines because they are made using cells or genetic material of aborted babies. We have been denied every time. Denying this exemption is a policy that began under "Uncle Ted" McCarrick. I have been informed by insiders that ADW as an unwritten policy not to grant such exemptions to Catholics. I suppose the logic is that Catholics are technically not forbidden from receiving such vaccines, and therefore are not under the pain of sin when they receive them. But as this article pointed out, an individual's moral standards could be higher than what is absolutely required.
What is especially a shame to me, is how little known this problem is. The bishops have an opportunity to inform their flocks about the ethical problems involved in the manufacturing of these vaccines. By doing this they could also be putting pressure on vaccine manufacturers to start making ethical vaccines. But instead, the bishops are sweeping under the rug everyone who cares about this problem.
It's not just about parents and individuals who opt out of such vaccines to protect their own conscience. The inaction and decisions of the bishops contribute to and perpetuate the culture of death for everyone who is involved in the manufacturing of vaccines and public health decisions.
Thanks Jane. I'm sorry you are experiencing that in ADW.
"Developed using fetal remains" is an incredibly misleading way to frame that issue. Those vaccines were tested on a cell line developed from fetal remains decades ago. There is even debate in the scientific community if it was an elective abortion or medically-managed miscarriage. There is no fetal tissue in any vaccine, full-stop.
At best it is remote, remote cooperation with evil from an abortion literally decades ago. We make choices every day that directly support the evil of abortion in the present and future-- to use that excuse, one had better be consistent in their life. For example, no more using cell phones or computers, as most tech and software companies directly pay for abortions for their employees, supported by our dollars. There are many, many more important issues the bishops can address to combat abortion rather than focusing on vaccines.
The Varicella vaccine contains DNA and protein belonging to an aborted child who is only known by his laboratory label, "MRC-5." The MMR vaccine contains entire cells belonging to an aborted child similarly known as "WI-38." These things are listed on the ingredients of the vaccines. Again, the vaccines *contain* whole cells or genetic material belonging to those aborted children. The material has descended from the mutilated baby's cells. They were not merely "tested on" a cell line.
Injecting cells and genetic material belonging to an aborted child into our bodies is clearly problematic, as evidenced by the statement from the Pontifical Academy for Life: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6539.
The argument that this is an abortion that happened decades ago is not only dismissive of the worth of those aborted children, it is overlooking the implications of what will continue to happen if we overlook this problem, or, indeed, bully people into complying with it.
I hope it is clear that this is very different than buying from companies who help employees pay for their own abortions.
They do not contain DNA and protein belonging to an aborted child. That is a common antivax talking point. Do you have any sources for that claim?
They could contain DNA from a cell line that originated decades ago from an aborted fetus, but those are not the same. For example, is a cheek swab culture "me" in the same sense of my physical being? Would destroying that culture be harming or destroying "me"? Certainly not. HeLa cells have been used in a majority of medical breakthroughs in the past decade, and were also unethically sourced-- yet I do not see any pushback on the many discoveries from them.
Even the article you linked (which is 20 years old and has been updated several times), does not mention your claim of "injecting cells and genetic material belonging to an aborted child into our bodies" as that is not how the vaccine development process works.
All guidance from the Vatican or USCCB mentions that this is at most remote material cooperation in evil, and we are still obligated to use these vaccines to protect the common good if no alternative is available. To forgo necessary vaccines because of this remote cooperation in evil is itself wrong, and no guidance from church authority has said otherwise. For example: https://www.usccb.org/resources/Vatican%20CDF%20statement%20on%20COVID%20vaccines.pdf
By typing these responses on our phones/laptops, we are financially supporting companies that use those funds to provide abortions. That is a much greater degree of remote material cooperation than taking a vaccine necessary to the common good (while still using our voices to ask for better alternatives, of course).
Regarding MRC-5 and WI-38,
"Each of these cell lines started with cells harvested from a deliberately aborted fetus" -https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/mrc-5-cell-line
You can find both MRC-5 and WI-38 listed on the ingredients of the vaccines.
These cells are essentially stolen goods, harvested after a murder.
Yes HeLa cells were also taken unethically, but not after a murder. And there has been for more publicity decrying that process than there has been for the murders that led to these cell lines.
It is my impression from the guidance that we are released from the obligation to avoid these unethical vaccines if it is a grave inconvenience. But that does not mean we are obligated to take the unethical vaccine. And as this article pointed out, "There’s a strong tradition in Catholicism that people must not be required to do something they consider to be sinful in order to participate in an organization."
I think the article does a good job explaining that people can in good conscience come to different conclusions on this matter. I don't intend to convince others that it's wrong to take the vaccine. I just hope not to be bullied into taking it or be told that I'm doing wrong by not taking it.
The document you cited seems to contradict your statement that it is "wrong" not to take a "necessary" vaccine. The document states, "practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral Obligation..."
Notwithstanding the obligation to avoid spreading of the disease by other means, I don't understand where it says it's wrong to opt out of a vaccine. Please correct me if I missed something or misunderstood your point.
Just a reminder, folks, of The Pillar's commenting policy: Christian charity.
We believe that we can talk about serious subjects with charity and decency toward our interlocutors. Let's all examine ourselves to ensure we're holding ourselves to that standard.