It is apparent that colleges and hospitals are poorly informed about not just the scientific facts pertaining to COVID vaccines, but also about the legal liabilities that they may incur by imposing vaccine mandates. These institutions are not aware that the FDA Cosmetic Act requires informed consent for the reception of any experimental medicine or that it gives people the right to refuse treatment and be made aware of alternative medicines.
Colleges and health care institutions are also ignoring the health privacy laws governing the Health Insurance Portability and Accounting Act (HIPAA). These institutions seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that the National Research Act of 1974 protects people from harm and coercion and necessitates complete informed consent for experimental treatments.
Lastly, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has stated that institutions that require vaccines are subject to mandatory reporting and liability for adverse events. Private businesses and schools should realize that these federal laws and regulations threaten economic and legal penalties if undue pressure is put on students and employees to accept what are otherwise classified as experimental vaccines.
The 2005 Pontifical Council of Life statement represents the historical Vatican position on vaccines that have been tainted with aborted fetal cells. Pursuant to Church teaching, there are four requirements that must be satisfied in order to licitly receive these dubious inoculations. First, the conditions prompting the reception of the vaccine must be grave. However, COVID-19 is not a grave threat to most individuals, excepting those that belong to certain high-risk groups like the elderly, diabetics, smokers and those who are obese or have chronic diseases. There may be justification for high-risk individuals taking an experimental vaccine, even if the vaccine is tainted with a product of abortion; however, there is no justification for vaccinating healthy individuals who are free of risk factors and who have a greater than 99% COVID survival rate.
Second, there must be an absence of an ethical alternative treatment. It has been documented that early ambulatory administration of a multi-drug regimen of hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin, in combination with zinc and azithromycin or doxycycline, reduces the risk of hospitalization, mortality and viral transmission in high-risk patients. However, the Vatican and USCCB have never advocated for hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. Additionally, most physicians have not conducted sufficient investigation into these medications, and only a minority of doctors currently prescribe them.
Third, individuals can exercise their moral conscience and refuse vaccination. However, this position is not acknowledged at many nominally Catholic institutions. Sadly, there are many stories about Catholic institutions not supporting Catholics who seek a religious exemption from taking morally tainted COVID vaccines.
Fourth, Catholics are required to urge the pharmaceutical industry to develop ethical alternative vaccines and subsequently promote their dissemination. Sadly, there is little evidence that the Church has shown the same zeal for promoting ethical vaccines as it has for reducing "vaccine hesitancy" among Catholics.
There is an unprecedented lack of popular confidence in our public health institutions — even among physicians. Students attending Catholic schools (and their parents) along with employees of Catholic hospitals are subjected to unprecedented threats to their constitutional, civil and religious rights, as well as to their health. Many Catholic colleges are mandating that students accept the COVID gene therapies before the fall semester begins. Catholic hospitals are requiring employees to accept the gene therapy or risk unemployment.
These institutions have adopted draconian measures without thoughtful analysis of the science, and they are placing their students at risk of great harm from an experimental vaccine that is medically futile for controlling the virus. Even more disgraceful is that these Catholic institutions will not grant religious exemptions from mandatory reception of the morally tainted vaccine. Moreover, such Catholic institutions will not provide students or employees access to hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin in the event that they become seriously ill from COVID.
It is regrettable that Catholics cannot expect leaders in the Vatican and the USCCB to support their rights to exercise their consciences and reject morally tainted vaccines. Catholics around the world are reaching out to the John Paul II Medical Research Institute to not only request the development of a morally acceptable vaccine but also to ask what strategies they should pursue to address vaccine mandates at colleges and hospitals. This is an issue that I predicted and wrote about several years ago when highlighting how morally tainted cells would alter the viability of the Catholic health care system.
Unfortunately, this pandemic has shown that the problem is even worse than I had predicted. I never imagined that Catholic hospitals would coerce Catholics to take a morally tainted medicine. The following recommendations will (regrettably) require individuals to take confrontational positions because the situation has escalated to crisis levels that threaten religious and civil liberties and even health. I recommend the following strategies for college students and their parents and for employees working at Catholic hospitals who refuse these experimental vaccines:
In conclusion, mandating these subunit vaccines represents a medically futile and likely illegal public-health effort to contain the spread of COVID-19. It is immoral and perhaps illegal for Catholic schools and hospitals to require young and healthy individuals to take an experimental drug that offers no personal benefit, but instead, poses serious health risks. Moreover, it is immoral for these Catholic institutions to threaten education and employment unless students or employees accept a medication derived from abortion. Such a course of action is contrary to the Pontifical Council of Life statement of 2005 and the more recent statements of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.