Washington D.C., Oct 6, 2021 / 10:40 am (CNA).
New guidance on issuing COVID-19 vaccine religious exemptions for federal employees insufficiently treats the matter of conscience, one Catholic bioethicist told CNA.
Federal employees are now required to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by Nov. 22, 2021. Guidance for federal agencies from the Office of Personnel Management, released on Monday, Oct. 4, states that employees requesting a religious exemption to the mandate “must first establish that [their] refusal to be vaccinated is based upon a sincere belief that is religious in nature.”
A template for religious exemptions includes a seven-part form for employees to fill out, asking a series of questions about employees’ religious-based objection to receiving a COVID-19 vaccine.
However, religious exemptions should be “liberally available” for employees, said Fr. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D., the director of education at The National Catholic Bioethics Center, in an interview with CNA. Otherwise, the vaccine mandates “can easily become intrusive, blunt instruments that end up violating personal liberties,” he said.
Many of the questions about religious exemptions in the federal guidance are “largely irrelevant to assessing whether someone has conscience concerns about being vaccinated,” he said.
The template provides questions for federal agencies, such as why an employee is opposed to receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. Other questions include the length of time an employee held their religious beliefs that support their objection, their adult vaccine history, other medicines they have avoided due to religious beliefs, and why receiving a COVID-19 vaccine would “substantially burden” their religious practice.
Pacholczyk said that questions about a “substantial burden” on one’s faith or how long they have objected to COVID-19 vaccines are “not, per se, of importance.”
Instead, the important point is “whether someone manifests a current conviction of conscience that they do not wish to be vaccinated,” he said.
“Simply conveying this personal point of resolve, whether in written or even oral form, and even in the absence of revealing the reasons, ought to provide the needed basis for the granting of a conscience exemption.”
Pacholczyk told CNA that it would be an error to presume that “one size always fits all” when it comes to vaccinations.
“Decisions about medical interventions properly belong in the hands of the individual patient, who can make an assessment that corresponds to his or her on-the-ground situation much more fully and meaningfully than any federal agency can do,” he said. “The principle of subsidiarity reminds us that one should not withdraw those decisions or choices that rightly belong to individuals or smaller groups and assign them to a higher authority except unless strictly necessary.”
People who refuse the COVID-19 vaccine, or any vaccine, however, should comply with other mitigation efforts to prevent the spread of disease, he said.
“Those who decline vaccinations, of course, may reasonably be expected, and even obligated, to choose other effective precautions to help limit the spread of pathogens when pandemics arise,” he said.
According to the federal guidance on COVID-19 vaccine religious exemptions, “A refusal to be vaccinated does not qualify for an exception if it is based upon personal preference, concerns about the possible effects of the vaccine, or political opinions.”
“The purpose of this form is to determine whether you may be eligible for an exception,” says the religious exemption template. “To be eligible for a possible exception, you must first establish that your refusal to be vaccinated is based upon a sincere belief that is religious in nature.”
The guidance adds that the government “is committed to respecting the important legal protections for religious liberty.”
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Those more familiar with the science are requested to comment on any of the following…
FIRST, personal risk taking? It would seem that a genuine religious (AND reasoned!) exemption petition could include the obligation to not risk compromising one’s overall natural immunity, by subjecting oneself to a “protective” injection that only works for a while against COVID. This while impairing the natural immune system (?), leaving one more vulnerable to a range of other future possible infections.
The Fifth Commandment possible comes into play here, such that not all “possible effects of the vaccine” are illegitimate as religious concerns. Each person is part of the religious “common good.”
The genetically engineered Moderna and Pfizer seem vulnerable to this criticism and, therefore, might not be equivalent alternatives to Johnson & Johnson (see below). They are not real vaccines, in that while they offer temporary protection, they do not stimulate, but possible suppress, the natural immune system. (The definition of “vaccine has been altered to now refer to “protection” rather than to stimulating the immune system.)
SECOND, past personal records? In the questionnaire, is the comparison to other kinds of vaccines which one might not have opposed in the past an irrelevant aside from the different nature of these two COVID antidotes?
THIRD, material cooperation? Johnson and Johnson is a real vaccine in that it does stimulate the natural immune system, and also apparently (?) offers longer-term results (while also causing some blood clot consequences with some reported fatalities). But, unlike Moderna and Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson is directly (not indirectly in product testing) derived from aborted fetal cells. While the case is made that the remoteness of such manufacture, in this case also, renders moot any “formal cooperation” by each patient in the original abortion(s), what about another moral category of “material cooperation”-—as possibly judged by the individual conscience?
FOURTH, the big picture? Does it fall to some consciences, now, to not cooperate in the broad and long-term trajectory of pharmaceuticals which continue to harvest aborted fetal cells for current products, and future research and application?
These are my street-level and very non-expert notions. Any more accurate, or different, or additional thoughts from those better informed or more qualified are invited!
Where is this form?
If it would be unthinkable to use products derived from the murder of a concentration camp victim, it should be unthinkable to use products derived from the victim of an abortion. The victims are equally human in both cases. One needn’t even be particularly “religious” to grasp that. Just a humane person of good will.