When – if ever – is a Catholic required to get vaccinated? When might a Catholic claim a religious or ethical conscience objection to vaccination? Can officially sponsored ministries of the Catholic Church – such as healthcare, schools and universities, and social service organizations – require people to be vaccinated as a condition of employment or admission to schools?
Amid conflicting media claims about the science and ethics of vaccines, we’re going to explore what the Catholic Church teaches about the ethics of vaccination and vaccine requirements. When – if ever - is a Catholic required to get vaccinated? When might a Catholic claim a religious or ethical conscience objection to vaccination? Can officially sponsored ministries of the Catholic Church – such as healthcare, schools and universities, and social service organizations – require people to be vaccinated as a condition of employment or admission to schools? These are just some of the questions we will explore.
In this episode of Ethics on Call we flip the script as Tom interviews our Executive Director, Dan Daly. Dan has been leading the Center’s recent work on vaccines after we received a request from a diocese in the U.S. to provide research to inform their Catholic schools' vaccination policies amidst requests for more exemptions.
--------------------------------
The following Vatican and USCCB documents deal with vaccines and are listed in chronological order of publication:
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Instruction Dignitas Personae on Certain Bioethical Questions,” (2008): https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20081208_dignitas-personae_en.html
Pontifical Academy for Life, “Note on Italian Vaccine Issue,” (July 31, 2017): https://www.horeb.org/fileadmin/eigene_dateien/Neue_Seite/2020_/Bilder/Unterseiten/Impfseite/note-vaccini.pdf.
Pontifical Academy for Life, “Moral Reflections on Vaccines Prepared from Cells Derived from Aborted Human Foetuses,” The Linacre Quarterly 86, nos. 2–3 (2019): 182–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0024363919855896.
Chairmen of the Committee on Doctrine and the Committee on Pro-Life Activities and United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, “Moral Considerations Regarding the New Covid-19 Vaccines,” (December 11, 2020): https://www.usccb.org/resources/moral-considerations-covid-vaccines.pdf
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Note on the Morality of Using Some Anti-Covid-19 Vaccines,” (December 21, 2020): https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20201221_nota-vaccini-anticovid_en.html#_ftnref3.
--------------------------------------
Fact Check: For more information about how vaccines are derived please see the following resources:
UK Health Security Agency, “Guide to the use of human and animal products in vaccines,” March 13, 2023: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/use-of-human-and-animal-products-in-vaccines/guide-to-the-use-of-human-and-animal-products-in-vaccines
Jianmei Li, Yixin Liu, Jie Dai, et al., “mRNA Vaccines: Current Applications and Future Directions,” MedComm 6, no. 11 (2025): e70434. https://doi.org/10.1002/mco2.70434.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Cell-Based Flu Vaccines,” August 25, 2023: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccine-types/cell-based.html
Tom Bushlack (00:01):
On July 31st, 2026, Florida's Attorney General James Uthmeyer sent a letter to the Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops in response to vaccination requirements in the state's Catholic schools. Uthmeyer wrote, "But as a Catholic, I am confident that the teachings of the Catholic church do not require Catholic schools to compel students to take vaccines derived from the tissue of aborted children against their sincerely held religious objections of their parents." Similarly, in 2026, a mother in Eastchester, New York filed a lawsuit against her public school after it denied her request for a vaccination exemption for her five-year-old son. She filed the lawsuit on the grounds that according to her Catholic faith, vaccination is a, again quoting, "Genuine serious sin. God created human beings in his image distinct from all other creatures. The mixing of human and animal blood material, human fetal cell lines combined with animal tissue violates this fundamental principle of God's created order." Meanwhile, in mid-September of 2026, the state of Pennsylvania reported its fourth measles related death of the year.
(01:17):
All victims were unvaccinated and had preexisting conditions that rendered them vulnerable to the worst effects of the disease. In this episode of Ethics on Call, we're going to examine vaccine ethics from a Catholic perspective. What does the Catholic church officially teach about vaccines? When, if ever, is a Catholic required to get vaccinated? And when might a Catholic claim religious or ethical conscientious objection or conscience objection to vaccination? Can officially sponsored ministries of the church like healthcare, education, or social service organizations require people to be vaccinated as a condition for employment or for admission to Catholic schools? These are just some of the questions we will explore in today's episode.
(02:12):
Welcome everyone to Ethics on Call, the official podcast Center for Theology and Ethics and Catholic Health. As you know, I'm your co-host of Ethics on Call, Tom Bushlak, senior director here at the Center for Theology and Ethics and Catholic Health. Today I'll be flipping the script a little bit to interview our executive director, Dan Daly. Dan has been leading the center's recent work on vaccines after we received a request from a diocese in the US asking us to provide some research and to inform their Catholic school vaccination policies amidst growing requests for vaccine exemptions. So Dan, welcome back to the show as both co-host and more as guest, I guess, in this episode.
Dan Daly (02:58):
Yeah, thanks Tom. It's good to be in the hot seat today. Not asking the questions, but answering them.
Tom Bushlack (03:04):
Yeah, I'm really going to turn the screw, don't worry.
Dan Daly (03:05):
No, that's what I expect.
Tom Bushlack (03:08):
Well, a lot of our listeners I sure are familiar with a lot of the background noise regarding vaccines, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, but we also know we have increasing vaccine skepticism, a lot of contradictory information in the media. We have proposed changes to the vaccine schedules recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And then for Catholics specifically, questions about the morality of using vaccines in general, and in particular, this question about using vaccines that have been created from fetal tissues derived initially from abortion. So it's really kind of understandable why people are confused and looking for guidance. So I know in talking about this episode, we as a center and you and I really want to provide helpful information and guidance for individuals who are seeking to sort out these conflicting messages and then to provide guidance also for those who work in Catholic ministries from more of a ministry organizational angle.
(04:11):
So I think to start us off, we've talked about this a lot in different episodes and in our work, in order to get into theology and ethics of how we respond, we have to understand what's happening, what's the phenomenon, what are we dealing with here? And so in this case, it's a question of understanding the science and the medicine. So what does the church or how does the church understand the science of vaccines and why does that matter for how we engage in both the theological and ethical reasoning that we want to get to?
Dan Daly (04:43):
Yeah, so it really is the first most important question. If you can't answer this one, the rest of them can't really be rightly answered. And as we know, ethics is rightly responding to reality. So the question is what is the reality of vaccines? What is the reality of communicable disease? You need to really understand that. You need to understand some of the biochemistry, some of the epidemiology in order to answer the question of the ethics. Can we require these things? Should we be taking them, et cetera? And I would say generally the church has an enormous amount of trust in peer-reviewed science, which that's where we are here, heavily, heavily peer-reviewed science. And that's a respect for experts. Expertise is not in vogue. It hasn't been for quite a while. It is still within the church. Church circles still respect expertise. You can think of John Paul's work on determination of death via neurologic criteria.
(05:44):
He trusts the science on what we colloquially call brain death. You can think about Pope Francis and Ladato Sea. He has an extended section toward the beginning of Ladato Sea on the science of greenhouse gases warming the environment that are put out by human activity and through carbon. So there's a trust of science and based on that science and that scientific understanding then emerge some, in light of our principles and values and virtues, some moral conclusions. And so I'd first say there's a trust in peer-reviewed science. You got to critically engage that science. I'm not saying that you have to interrogate it and again, it's got to be peer-reviewed, but there's a trust there. But if you look at the stats today in this country, only about 46% of Americans believe that the facts on vaccines are still up for debate. So almost half of the country does not trust the science, does not trust the peer-reviewed science.
(06:49):
While only about this is a political study, only 39% of the science on vaccines is clear. So we've got a lot of mistrust, we've got a lot of skepticism out there on something that is, and we can talk about this, and it has been shown to be both safe and effective. And that's the CDC saying that even today in 2026. So what these stats have led to, this kind of perspective that the science is not settled on this, it's not clear, has led to a dramatic rise in vaccine exemptions for school-aged children. So the CDC has put out some statistics that if you go back to the pandemic year, one of the pandemic year, yes, the first pandemic year, 2020 to 2021, that's the first full school year in which we were in the pandemic. Only 2.2% of all school children in this country received exemptions from vaccines.
(07:55):
So pretty low number, maybe higher than it should be, but still fairly low. In 2025, 26, the most recent completed school year, 4.2% of children in this country had vaccine exemptions. So a dramatic rise in a very short amount of time.
(08:15):
But if you look at, the question is, are they safe and effective? And the CDC has shown, and this goes through many studies and meta-analyses and there's been a ton of data generated on this. They are both safe and effective. The worst side effects according to the CDC are almost always mild, such as redness and swelling at the injection site and go away within a few days. More serious side effects such as an allergic reaction are incredibly rare and there are ways to treat those reactions. So ultimately what the CDC says is, "The disease prevention benefits of getting vaccines are much greater than the possible side effects for almost all children." And the only exception that they have are children who cannot take the vaccine for a medical reason, because they have cancer, because they have a disease that weakens the immune system, or they've had a severe allergic reaction to a previous dose.
(09:17):
So the vaccines are safe and then they're incredibly effective. So there have been studies that have shown that in this country alone, this is just in the United States, for children born between 1994 and 2023, that 1.1 million children deaths have been prevented in this country alone because of childhood vaccination. So this is an incredibly effective and safe way to protect your kids. And in fact, it is children who are most vulnerable to these communicable diseases. So it's a pro-life, as I'll argue, it's a pro-life pro-child policy, whether it's in schools or within hospitals or just a general approach.
Tom Bushlack (10:11):
Yeah. I want to put a pin in those numbers you gave about the 2.2 to 4.2. And I know we'll talk about this later, the effects and realities of herd immunity and why those numbers actually matter specifically for the people who can't get vaccinated for other medical reasons. So we can come back to that later, but I think that's an interesting point. So this maybe isn't directly linked to the Catholic response, but I think everybody's heard, at least on some level, if you live in our culture, about this initial supposed link between specifically the MMR, the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and autism. So there's a really fascinating history that I think is super important for people to know about from a public health perspective. Can you walk us through where that came from and why there's just absolutely no reason to believe it?
Dan Daly (11:09):
Yeah, no, it's an important question, Tom. So there was a 1998 article that was put out by Andrew Wakefield, who's the lead author on this paper, and it basically showed in the paper, it showed a link between MMR and autism, that autism could be caused by MMR. And the paper was later retracted by the journal, the Lancet, very well-respected journal, because they found that financial interests led to its publication and that there was no basis in fact or evidence for the claims that were made. The problem was that was retracted years and years later. The paper got traction in the culture, especially here in the United States, and it is hard now to... The cat is out of the bag, and so people are convinced that this is actually true and that now there's a conspiracy that's trying to retract the article and say that there is no link.
(12:17):
But other studies, many, many, many other studies have shown that there is no causal link between MMR and autism. And so Wakefield actually had his license revoked in addition to the article being retracted. So there is no basis in fact here. And again, in the Catholic tradition, we base things in fact. We believe in truth and that there are scientific truths, and this is one of them, that there is no demonstrated link between MMR and autism.
Tom Bushlack (12:50):
Yeah. And I think part of the challenge too is it's stories like this that lead to some of the skepticism about science in general, and sometimes it's hard to tease out what's bad science and what's the real science. But I think the fact that we can trace this and then have follow-up studies and say we actually can investigate and discern what is reliable and what's not, even if it's not perfect from the outset. And to your point, there's a anthropological commitment about what it means to be human that we can use our reason to know the truth about science and about theology and ethics, or at least move in that direction. Okay, so more to the point for the Catholic tradition and Catholics following this conversation, again, we're just on the science, we'll get to the theology and ethics, but how are some vaccines manufactured that have been using cells derived from aborted fetuses or tissues?
Dan Daly (13:57):
Yeah, so there are a number of cell lines that have been developed from direct abortions that happened either in the 1960s or early '70s. So vaccines for rubella, hepatitis A, rabies, chickenpox, all of these are manufactured by growing weakened versions of these viruses in cell lines developed from these abortions. So the initial abortion happens, cells are removed, these cells are replicating indefinitely. This is a unique feature of these cells, so that's why they're attractive for the manufacturer of vaccines because in order to manufacture a vaccine, you need a host. Viruses don't replicate on their own. They need a host to replicate, or at least these viruses don't, maybe some do, but these viruses don't. So it needs a host, these cells provide that host. What happens is the viruses enter the cell, they replicate, they burst the cell open, the cell dies. And then what the manufacturer does is they clean the vaccine of all cell debris and what is left over is the vaccine, which again is a weakened version of that virus so the body can create an immune response to it.
(15:18):
So today, and this has been the case for quite a while now, it is impossible to be fully vaccinated according to accepted vaccine schedules without taking the vaccines developed with these lines. So if you're fully vaccinated, it's highly likely that you have had a vaccine that was developed using one of these cell lines. And as we'll see, the church has said to develop vaccines using these cell lines is wrong. It should never have happened. And the church has consistently called upon manufacturers to create cell lines that are not produced using these cell lines that are developed from direct abortions. That's been a clear position. The other question is, is it wrong to take them? And as we'll see, it's not, and there are good reasons for that.
Tom Bushlack (16:20):
Yeah. And we'll tease that out because I think a lot of people have a sort of initial reactivity to that. Absolutely. Even almost a disgusting one kind of like, "Ooh, I don't want to participate in that." And I think that's understandable, but we will get there about how that reasoning has played out in the tradition. Okay, so we've kind of done the science back work or the foundational work is a better word. Second, I guess, would be what are the theological and ethical principles and magisterial teaching in some cases that the Catholic church has developed for how individuals and sponsored ministries approach vaccination?
Dan Daly (17:03):
Yeah, so I did say there's a number of principles that when we think about the ethics of vaccination, we're going to be appealing to a number of different values, principles, virtues. We could start by just talking about dignity, that each person has ontological dignity, that is they're transcendently valuable and their social dignity should be respected. Basically what social dignity means is that you're treated like a person, you're given what you need to live a life that may flourish. And so because human beings have that dignity, there is a certain sacredness to each human life. It's special, it's unique, and should be treated in a respectful way. We can go back to John 10:10 where Jesus says, "I came that they may have life and life abundantly, not just life, but a life that may flourish." Jesus says, "This is why I have come." And we know that he means both life, temporal life, but also eternal life, but it really is both.
(18:09):
In addition to that, we can think about, so life's sacred, life's special, it's something that ought to be promoted. Aquinas goes even deeper and says, "Really, you have an obligation to promote and preserve your life and health." We all have this natural inclination to survive, to live, to thrive, to flourish, and you have an obligation to do that in reasonable ways. You don't have to do everything to keep yourself alive, but in reasonable ways to eat a healthy diet or to exercise, you can still have that glass of wine and that red meat, but so it's all - Dark chocolate.
Tom Bushlack (18:47):
Don't forget the dark chocolate.
Dan Daly (18:48):
Chocolate or chocolate. So he's not saying that you've just got to do everything in your power always to be the healthiest you can be. That's not what he's saying, but it's about doing what's reasonable. So then the question is, well, what's reasonable and what's unreasonable? But all of this gets combined in the church's pro-life ethic. And the fullness of the pro-life ethic is not just that we don't kill the innocent, that's at the very heart of it, whether it's murder, abortion, capital punishment, just genocide, all of those things, certainly the church is against. But because Jesus caring that we may have life and life abundantly, it's all those things that help us to live more, live better, to flourish, and so to be healthy. And so that the fullness of the church's pro-life ethic goes beyond just not killing. It goes to enabling people to live a good and healthy life.
(19:46):
So I would say that's at the very core, the notion of dignity, the sacredness of life, which we can talk about broadly in that pro-life tradition. I would also say that, and this comes, we can go back to Aquinas, we can go back to the scripture on this, that we have an obligation to promote the common good. So I have an obligation to promote my own life and health, but I also have an obligation to do that for others, my children, my community. We are not individualists in the Catholic tradition. It is a communal tradition. So you have special obligations to yourself and to your family, but you also have obligations to others. You have an obligation in so far as you can promote the common good, you ought to. Again, this is about what's reasonable for you to do to promote the wellbeing of others.
(20:36):
And in fact, we know that the way that we do this, one of the ways that we promote the common good is we start by making decisions that benefit the least well off, the most vulnerable people, because those are the people who have been left out of society, left out of the goods that we have to distribute. So if we want to truly create a common good, we've got to begin by exercising what John Paul has called in Solicitudore Isosialis, a preferential option for the poor. And he takes us from liberation theologians in the '70s and develops it. But when we think about the issue, let's say if we turn back to vaccination, there are many people who are very vulnerable to these diseases. So again, I would first invite us to think about infants. They are the most vulnerable because their immune systems are underdeveloped and they cannot take every vaccine the moment they're born.
(21:31):
So there's a schedule, that's why we talk about a schedule. There are certain markers that will vaccinate all the way up to one year. Then there are immunocompromised people, people who are, for whatever reason, because maybe they have cancer, maybe it's another medication, their immune systems are not fully functioning. They don't have a healthy immune system, so they can't fight off these communicable diseases.
(21:57):
And then there's the unborn who are also uniquely vulnerable to communicable disease. So when we think about these issues, we've got to think about this kind of pro-life tradition that is centered on human dignity and our obligation to promote the common good. And how do we do that? We do that when we first and foremost think about who is the most vulnerable in this situation, and then we make decisions to promote their good first. That's not where we end, but it's where we begin.
Tom Bushlack (22:26):
Yeah. And I think tying this all together, you started with that natural inclination that Aquinas talks about to preserve one's life. Embedded within that is also his understanding of a human person is what he calls a rational social creature. So yeah, we do that for us as individuals, but we do it in a social context and we do it on behalf of our species to use a more obscure term. But the more communitarian way of saying that is because I love my neighbor and that I benefit from that. We all benefit from it. And when you were talking about Solicitudo raciosialis, you quoted the preferential option. I though you were going to also quote solidarity initially where I thought you were going. That's also where GP2 gives his definition. So it's this sense of once we realize that we're all in this together and that our survival is not just about the Darwinians scraping everyone else down to rise to the top, then solidarity and the common good are just sort of natural.
(23:35):
They don't have to be added in as a later moral argument. It's like it's there from the beginning within the tradition.
Dan Daly (23:42):
That's right. I think you're totally right. I mean, solidarity is both just a fact of existence. We only flourish together, and it's also a moral calling that we should become more connected. And I think this gets at what you're making me think of is we can make all these arguments from these principles, but really, I mean, it comes down to, I'm glad you brought in, this is about the love of neighbor. How do we love our neighbor? What kind of a person are you? Are you the kind of person that might expose someone who's immunocompromised or an infant to a deadly disease? This gets at the very core of what it means to be a Christian or even just a person of goodwill. You don't have to be Catholic to believe that you should promote the wellbeing of others and that you don't want to be a factor of disease to a vulnerable person or community.
Tom Bushlack (24:37):
Yeah. I think that's a great way to set up the foundations for getting into now what is maybe more of the official or ministerial Catholic teaching on vaccination? What are the sources where those come from besides the general ones that we've just noted, but specifically on vaccination and how that plays out?
Dan Daly (25:02):
Yeah. So what's interesting, Tom, is there isn't one comprehensive document that goes through this. I mean, if you want to look in a place that has the highest authority, it would be Dignitas Persone, and that will get specifically, we'll talk about that in a little bit, that'll get at the taking of vaccines that were derived from cell lines from abortions. But there's a whole host of documents that have been published, whether it's from the CDF, the Dignitas Persone was published when it was still the CDF, now the DDF, the Pontifical Academy for Life from the USCCB. All of these groups have contributed to this teaching. And so I'll provide a summary in some kind of dot points here. I'd say the first thing that you see throughout all these documents, and again, we'll link these in the show notes, is the vaccination is a good for the person and having a community be vaccinated is what they call a global common good.
(26:08):
It's a common good that goes throughout the globe, that my vaccine status affects others, so we can all contribute to the common good through being inoculated against these diseases. A second important point is, and you'll see this in the tradition, and this shouldn't be surprising, is it's got to be voluntary. We should not be vaccinating people against their will. This goes to the very heart of the Catholic approach to healthcare, that we respect patient autonomy, we respect the choices. Even if we disagree, we respect the choices of patients. So it's got to be voluntary. We shouldn't be doing this against the will of people. The third one is, and I think this is well established in the tradition, there is no blanket or general universal obligation to be vaccinated. That has never been stated. So while it may be a really good thing, there's no obligation for everyone to have every vaccine.
(27:10):
However, so that's the first point. There's no blanket obligation to be vaccinated. But the USCCB notes in the document, they write, "The morality of vaccination depends not only on the duty to protect one's own health, but also on the duty to pursue the common good." So when you think about the ethics of vaccination, you've got to think about protecting your own health, but also as we've noted many times already, the common good. So some people do have an obligation. So just because there isn't an obligation for every person doesn't mean there isn't an obligation for specific people. So let's say you have children. I would tend to think that given what we know from the USCCB and through all the concepts we've discussed, that a parent has an obligation to be vaccinated to protect the child that they are intimately connected to on a daily basis.
(28:05):
I would say a teacher, a physician, a nurse, a home health aide. We can go down the line of people who have specific social roles, relational roles that would require them to be vaccinated. So no blanket obligation, but that doesn't mean that there is an obligation for certain people. There certainly is.
Tom Bushlack (28:27):
Right. Yeah. I mean, this came up. I was working directly within the ministry during the COVID pandemic and then the vaccine that eventually came out. And that was really interesting to see this play out because we have that statement of is any one person obligated to get the vaccine? Well, no, we can't coerce people. But we were also dealing with healthcare workers, and I'm not just talking about the providers, but everybody who works in a system where vulnerable patients are coming in who are immunocompromised or sick or vulnerable in a particular way. And there were a lot of requests for exemption that people were angry about having to get the COVID vaccine, and those had to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. And there were certain standards that people met a criteria for consistency in terms of their religious or ethical beliefs. But there were people who did not meet those criteria and were not offered the exemption, and they were then given the choice.
(29:36):
If you want to work here, you have to get vaccinated because when you walk through our doors, you are literally touching people who could die if you transmit this disease to them. So yeah, it's interesting how that then plays out in a particular context or for a specific role that it might be required. And I think there's... Yeah, go ahead. Yeah.
Dan Daly (29:58):
No, what's so interesting about the COVID issue is that what some people said at the time was that, well, the efficacy and the safety haven't been demonstrated. And so this is fundamentally unlike, let's say, the vaccine schedule, the predated COVID.
(30:16):
And so that throws a complication into the whole thing. But nonetheless, I think your point, and you see this and my next point is essentially going to get at that. The USCCB put out a COVID-19 statement, and I'll quote it because I think it really gets to the heart of what you're talking about in many ways. So they said, look, if you're not going to be vaccinated, if you're not going to take the vaccine, you have an obligation, and I'll quote directly from the document, "You have an obligation to avoid by other prophylactic means and appropriate behavior becoming vehicles for transmission of the infectious agent. In particular, they must avoid any risk to the health of those who cannot be vaccinated for medical or other reasons and who are the most vulnerable." So who's in the hospital? Well, there are some people who can be vaccinated, but they are certainly the most vulnerable.
(31:09):
And so they said by other prophylactic means, now is that wearing gloves and wearing a mask, is that enough? And so this is when we get back to the science. What does the science say? The best science that we have at the time. Science is never settled. There are mysteries in science, but we go based on the facts that we have at the moment and we have to make the most reasonable decision at that time. So if we pull back from COVID and we just look at the other parts of the schedule, let's say MMR, if you're not going to get vaccinated, what the document basically is saying is you've got to make sure you're not spreading a disease that you may have in a latent form. You may not fully understand you have it, or you might just think you're sick and it's really something more serious, a common cold, but it's something that is much more infectious and dangerous.
Tom Bushlack (32:06):
Well, on that point, I wonder, is that partly where the herd immunity point becomes salient about... I don't know if you want to say a little bit about what that is from the scientific perspective and why that might factor into one's prudential reasoning around whether or not to be vaccinated in a particular or receive a particular vaccination.
Dan Daly (32:32):
Yeah. So herd immunity, this is just a gloss on it. I don't have a definition at hand.
Tom Bushlack (32:37):
Yeah. Neither one of us went to medical school, just to clarify.
Dan Daly (32:43):
But basically is that there's a certain level of immunization or immunity in the community so that diseases can't spread. And so it depends on the disease, what the number is, what the percentage is. Sometimes I think I've seen it like low 80s or low 90s. It depends again on the communicability of the disease, but you need an overwhelming majority of folks to be vaccinated or immune from the disease so the disease won't freely spread. And this raises the question of the free rider problem. And this is happening currently in this country where people say, look, most people have MMR, so I don't have to get it or give it to my kids because they'll be protected by others. And again, that speaks of an individualist mindset and moral perspective that is anathema in Catholic thinking. It's rejected. We don't believe in the free rider. We believe that everyone should contribute to and receive from the common good.
(33:53):
And so again, you could find that in the scripture, you could find it in Aquinas, you could find it in the church's social teaching all the way through Magnifica Humanitas.
Tom Bushlack (34:02):
Well, I wanted to draw that point because I think the statistic you gave earlier about exemptions going from 2.2% to 4.2, I think you could look at that and say, who cares? Why does that matter? Why does that number matter? But there is a tipping point as a community, as a global community, as a species, at which when that number, even though it's still relatively small, becomes large enough that then suddenly, yeah, for most of us who have fully intact healthy immune systems, that's probably not going to affect you and I. But that does start to then become an even greater risk for people who are immunocompromised and can't get vaccinated for whatever reason. And so that's again where it's like it's a love of neighbor common good kind of question that comes into play, I think.
Dan Daly (34:59):
Yeah. And I think you're seeing that right now in Pennsylvania and elsewhere where we've had these measles outbreaks.
(35:04):
And I don't know whether they've gone beneath the herd immunity number for measles, but they've certainly gone lower. And this is one of the... There's a slide, I don't know if we can share it. What the slide basically shows is that there is an inverse relationship between vaccination rates for measles and measles infection. That is as measles vaccination rates dip, this is in the last few years, infection rates have skyrocketed. And so there's an inverse relationship there. So what does that mean? It basically means that the vaccine works and that when our rates dip, more people are exposed. And that's why we've had those folks in those tragic situations in Pennsylvania. People die from something that in 2026, that no one needs to... Some people have severely compromised immune systems, so I'm not going to make an epidemiological claim that it should never kill anyone because certainly we can't prevent all deaths, but certainly these deaths seem to be preventable because we hadn't had a measles death I think in 30 some odd years.
(36:24):
So it's concerning. Two more points just on the church's kind of perspective on this.
Tom Bushlack (36:31):
Yeah, yeah. Go for it.
Dan Daly (36:33):
Let's return to the issue of vaccines developed using cell lines from abortions.
Tom Bushlack (36:39):
Okay. Yeah, that was going to be my next question. So yeah, go for it.
Dan Daly (36:41):
Yeah. So the 2008 document in Dignitas Persone, the CDF wrote that, "Danger to the health of children could permit parents to use a vaccine which was developed using cell lines of illicit origin." Here they're clearly talking about cell lines developed from aborted fetal tissue. What's the reason? So what they've basically said is it's permissible to do so. It's not wrong to use these vaccines. Why? They said, "Because of the grave consequences of foregoing such vaccines. There are grave consequences to children and to the immunocompromised, to infants, to the unborn." So basically the CDF has argued that the use of these vaccines is permissible. And so that's a high level teaching from the magisterium that there's nothing wrong with taking these vaccines, but there's more. I mean, in fact, it's prudent to do so. Given the gravity of the issue, it makes sense. It's reasonable. It's the most effective way to prevent your children, yourself and others from getting these communicable and sometimes deadly diseases.
(37:53):
Along with that, there is an obligation. So if you take these vaccines, now you are obligated to speak out against the fact that they are being manufactured with these illicit cell lines. So when you take them, you incur another obligation, which is to denounce the fact that they are developed like this and to ask for vaccines that are developed without such cell lines.
(38:19):
And last point, the way to sum this up is the church does not prohibit the use of any vaccine. That's clear. The Pontifical Academy for Life wrote that, "All clinically recommended vaccines can be used with a clear conscience." So that means every vaccine that's on the vaccine schedule can be used with a clear conscience, including those that are developed using cell lines from aborted fetal tissue. So what's the final point here? And that there's agreement on this. There is no religious exemption from vaccines for Catholics. You cannot make a Catholic religious exemption claim because the church does not outlaw, does not elicit any vaccine that is currently on the market.
Tom Bushlack (39:11):
I mean, I think that that's worth underlining because there is a certain... Given how vocal the Catholic tradition is about abortion, I think there's a certain sort of logic to the idea that we should not use these vaccines. And so I think it's really important to understand the argument that they're making pretty boldly and consistently. This is not an ambiguous teaching. They're saying not only can you use these because of the grave danger to public health, but you should strongly consider it. They're never going to say should because it's an individual choice, but they're certainly not saying that you have any duty or even right to refuse it on those grounds. And then going forward, we should be making a public claim of the pharmaceutical manufacturers that they not continue doing that. So yeah, I just want to underline that because I think it's one of the more confusing points in the public dialogue.
Dan Daly (40:20):
Yeah. And I think one of the things we should say too, and you mentioned this I think at the outset, it's distasteful, even disgusting, morally obliged that these cell lines are being used in this way. It really grates against the pro-life sensibilities of the church and of people of goodwill that a human being shouldn't be instrumentalized, reduced to a thing. And I think that's where the ethics of the manufacturer is. The manufacturers, they've done that and there's something very distasteful and it undercuts the kind of witness to every single life, whether it's in utero or at the end of life. But again, as we've seen, the ethics of taking these vaccines once developed is an entirely different matter.
Tom Bushlack (41:08):
Yeah. Well said. Well said. So I'm starting to notice a bit of a pattern now that we're in season two of Ethics on Call. We always get to the end and we're like, "Okay, so what? What's the takeaway?" But that also gets parsed to individuals and then to the organizational or ministry level. So let's take the individual takeaways. Can you summarize a Catholic theological ethical approach to vaccines for somebody who might be discerning their own decisions regarding vaccination or perhaps for their children because they are, of course, as parents, we make those decisions for them when they're minors. And then we'll turn to the more of organizational side.
Dan Daly (41:51):
Yeah, I would say for individuals, the church is recommending that we get vaccinated. It sees vaccination as a good thing. It's a part of the church's pro-life teaching that we have demonstrated these are safe and effective. They can save, they can prevent death, they can prevent us being vectors of other people's illness and impossible death. And so in general, it's a good thing that should be done unless you have some other reason why you can't, and those would be mainly medical reasons. But the fact is that because there are people who have those medical reasons, they cannot be vaccinated even more. For those of us who can be vaccinated, we should because out of care and love and concern for those people, we should do our part to protect them. It really is, as you mentioned earlier, an act of love for those who are more vulnerable than we are.
Tom Bushlack (42:50):
Yeah. Great. So that's helpful from just the individual discernment kind of standpoint. What would you say for, I guess specifically for Catholic Healthcare Ministries, but this was, as I mentioned at the beginning, we've been asked to provide some guidance to Catholic schools within a diocese and there are social service agencies. So what would you say would be a recommendation or best practices for vaccination policies and requirements for employees, maybe for students as well in Catholic ministries?
Dan Daly (43:29):
Yeah, I would say in general, it's completely morally permissible to have vaccine requirements for any Catholic ministry, any Catholic organization, whether that's a hospital, a school, social service organization, parish, you name it, because these organizations have an obligation. Ministries have an obligation to promote wellbeing. I mean, that's why they exist. They exist to carry out some one of Jesus's ministries, whether it's the healing ministry, the teaching ministry, the ministry to the poor, the sacramental ministry of Jesus, that's why these organizations exist. And so they exist for the wellbeing, the whole person wellbeing of each person. And this is one of the ways we can do that is by requiring folks for their own sake to be vaccinated, but really also for the sake of others who can't be vaccinated. And so if you want to invite people into your organization, you want to invite them into a safe space.
(44:35):
And in fact, as a leader, you may have an obligation to create a safe space. I would say you do. I mean, you think about this with every time you get on a plane, you'll pass a sign that says firearms are not allowed on this plane.
(44:49):
So there is a Second Amendment right to bear arms in this country. You could bear arms in many places, but not in every place. Why? For the safety of the public. In places of sensitivity to protect the public, we don't allow people to bear arms. So every right is limited. And so while you may have a right not to be vaccinated, your right does not confer a correlative right to access every institution we have. You don't have a right to our schools if you're not vaccinated because others have a right to a safe place, a place where they won't get sick, a place where they won't contract a disease that they can't be protected against. So I would say to the leaders of these ministries, to these organizations, you are well within your rights as a leader to protect the vulnerable and require vaccination of employees, students, anyone who might be interacting with the organization that you can require that of them, that they are vaccinated.
Tom Bushlack (45:50):
So I know we haven't mentioned this yet, but one of the things that will come out of this work is probably a position statement that we'll put out by the center. So for folks listening, if you haven't been on our website, theologyandethics.org, it will be posted there. You can also join our email list. There's a button to click there, pretty simple to sign up for. So you'd be notified when that comes out. But anything that you want to say about what to anticipate in that? I mean, we've probably covered a lot of what's going to be in that document and summarized, but is there anything specific you want to say about that document or that position statement?
Dan Daly (46:29):
No, I mean, it's in development. I'm not sure when we'll be able to publish it, but essentially what we've discussed here will be represented in that statement. And really I think geared toward this, to get to your last question again, Tom, really geared toward the leaders of Catholic ministries and organizations. What are their rights vis-a-vis requiring vaccination of employees, students, anyone, again, who is connected to the organization?
Tom Bushlack (47:01):
Yeah. Great. Well, this has been really thorough and I think very helpful for people who might be genuinely confused or asking these kinds of questions to what does the tradition say and how can we help people think through this for themselves or their ministries? Is there anything that you want to add that I didn't ask you that you wish I had before we close?
Dan Daly (47:23):
No, I think it was pretty thorough, Tom. Well done.
Tom Bushlack (47:26):
All right. Yeah. Hey, you too. New way of doing the podcast here. Well, thanks so much for all the work you've put into this and for coming on and sharing all of the fruits of your research on this topic. So it's been fun to switch up the roles a little bit.
Dan Daly (47:45):
It has been fun. Yeah, that was good. Yeah.
Tom Bushlack (47:47):
Great. Yeah. Well, thank you all again for listening. For Dan Daly, I'm Tom Bushlak, and this has been another episode of Ethics on Call. You can find our podcast on YouTube, Spotify, Apple, anywhere else you download or play podcasts as well as our website at theologyandethics.org/podcast. As always, if you're on one of those platforms, please follow us and subscribe, leave us a review, click the five stars, write in comments that helps people find the show. And we would really love to hear from you and anything that you might be taking, questions you might have about the episode, so you can leave notes there as well in the comment section. So thanks again for being with us everybody, and we look forward to being with you next time.