In Ontario, unfortunately medical professional’s personal consciences are not respected. Two instances, amongst others pose an immediate and proximate issue: MAID (assisted suicide), and effective referrals for abortion. Currently these are two very pressing issues, but are not limited to these matters. Ethically, many bio-ethicists have claimed that to offer effective-referrals for either is to “formally cooperate” with an act that is intrinsically evil.
Conscience rights are an important thing worth protecting, at the civil level, and we must learn to accept the negative repercussions that come from the diversity of views that result therein. In any community it is imprudent to micromanage or coerce consciences, violently into the same value and agenda as the state. Obviously, there are some matters which involve enforcement, however when it comes to matters of conscience that are complex, and diverse, the process of informing one’s conscience should not be obstructed by coercive tactics from the government such as “losing your Job if you don’t offer an effective referral” or “You are fired because you would not provide Plan B.” There are several things that this inhibits in a mature democracy, but I will name three: (1) affective maturity, (2) individual dignity, and (3) free-speech/thought.
1) Affective maturity is where one can understand another person’s position that is contrary to their own without taking it personally. In this regard, there is an openness to the other to dialogue, and not vilify the enemy. This happens on both sides – take for instance those discussing the vaccine: it is the “mark of the beast” or the people receiving the vaccine “hate the vulnerable.” None of these are mature responses, but they are angry ones that are rooted in a type of affective-wound that has gone unhealed. Part of that maturity is living in a society where we meet professionals who don’t share our same world view, and having the patient respect that they do not have a right to force someone to do something they don’t believe in.
2) Respecting the individual consciences of others allows them to go through a process of informing their conscience, and to exercise it. Consciences are a distinctive part of a human person where their own individuality is called to humbly submit to the truth and act accordingly. In this regard we reflect on the importance of “interior freedom” where fear, coercion, and dictates are not imposed upon that individual for the sake of egalitarian conformity. Such conformity is unintelligible, especially if it rises from a type of Categorical Kantian ethical system that does not have the opportunity to nuance complex situations that may exist in each individual. For instance, there are those who cannot receive the vaccine for several reasons, some in regard to their interpretation of the data/science, others because of their medical situation as mothers, etc… but the circumstances of each particular individual needs to be respected, as well as the process by which they come to make a decision so that it can truly be their own. Without this freedom, we have slaves to fear and coercion.
3) Free-Speech and free-thought is incredibly important, because, as a subset to the previous point, it enables a person to freely examine their own reasoning without the pressure to conform to various tribes. However, if a disproportionate type of enforcement occurs, it will undermine the ability to speak, dialogue and even shed a light upon the topic being discussed. Conclusions and recommendations from others will become untrustworthy because opposing views have been silenced or oppressed.
Finally the application of all of this is to say that while the Church cannot provide religious grounds for a person to avoid receiving the vaccine, the CDF does clearly indicate that one should respect the conscience freedoms of others. These two should not be conflated: religious reasons, and conscience freedoms. Although there is certainly an overlapping dimension between the two, the religious aspect pertains to the moral and theological reasoning, while the conscience pertains to one’s own particular circumstances, their own philosophical reasoning, and experiences. Thus, conscience rights are more general (broader) than religious rights. These conscience rights, the CDF does believe are worthy of defending, which in a democratic country, and especially in Ontario have demonstrably been proven not to be respected. I think this is an area worthy of our efforts to reexamine.
The original purpose of this post was to explain that while I am in favor of vaccines, I respect the right for others to think otherwise. I believe we need to have healthy discussions on this matter, as a mature democratic society should, but this is unfortunately inhibited by what is already demonstrated to be a lack of liberty amongst health officials, and what is sometimes an equal-opposite reaction.
Photo: Public Domain
9 thoughts on “Conscience Rights”
Just to clarify that conscience can never approve or be obeyed when intrinsic evil is involved i.e. abortion.
“The legal toleration of abortion or of euthanasia can in no way claim to be based on respect for the conscience of others” (Evangelium Vitae #71)
The negative precepts of the natural law are universally valid. They oblige each and every individual, always and in every circumstance. It is a matter of prohibitions which forbid a given action semper et pro semper, without exception, because the choice of this kind of behaviour is in no case compatible with the goodness of the will of the acting person, with his vocation to life with God and to communion with his neighbour. It is prohibited — to everyone and in every case — to violate these precepts. They oblige everyone, regardless of the cost, never to offend in anyone, beginning with oneself, the personal dignity common to all. (Veritatis Splendor, no. 52)
“But the negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behavior as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. They do not leave room, in any morally acceptable way, for the “creativity” of any contrary determination whatsoever”. (Veritatis Splendor #67)
What about Catholics whose professional responsibilities involve the creation and/or application of mandatory vaccination policies? The decisions of, for example, health care institutions to make vaccination mandatory to protect both the vulnerable patients and other staff are always subject to exceptions stemming from the Human Rights Code (ie. medical or religious objections), but there is a distinction between conscience rights regarding intrinsically evil acts and whether vaccination can be mandated. It seems the decision to require vaccination of all health care workers is a prudential decision, not a matter of imposing an intrinsic evil. Like conscription during wartime, it is a blunt instrument but we are in an emergency. Soldiers don’t get to refuse orders to do something that is not intrinsically evil.
Russ, production of the products currently available, does involve an intrinsic evil without question. The Vatican writings from Dec. 2020 acknowledge as much though they do allow one to use them IF 1) there is no alternative and 2) one makes their strong objection well known. Few are bothering with #2. These products would not exist without the murder of the innocent unborn and the exploitation and commoditization of their remains by researches and those knowingly buying the products of that research. Hence, can a valid “prudential” decision be considered binding of anyone? How can a well founded prudential judgment bind one to cooperate with evil?
A little thought experiment- try to imagine a scenario in which the organs removed from te murdered victim was taken not from a helpless, aborted child, but from a concentration camp victim. Can you imagine anyone defending or endorsing products made therefrom in the interest of prudential judgment? I can’t. Such a product would be universally condemned in the most vociferous manner. It would be unthinkable that any manufacturer would make such a product. Yet the unborn are equally human and equally entitled to protection in the eyes of almighty God. Why should our attitude by any different from one scenario as compared with the other? Yet it is. I find that gravely disturbing. Short term “good” may come out of validating these products, made by evil means. No enduring good will come out of them. Human life and dignity will suffer a grave wound.
Thanks for your response, I am struggling with this issue. I will express the issue differently – if there is no moral culpability for the person who accepts the vaccine in accordance with the CDF advice and analysis, so accepting the vaccine is not intrinsically evil, what is the basis for a conscientious objection that is not based on a religious prohibition? Remember, the evil lies with those who cooperated with the abortion, and who decided to use the subsequent cell line in production and testing, not the person for whom accepting the vaccination is sufficiently remote that it is acceptable without moral fault as a proportionate response to their circumstances and there is no untainted vaccine available. I get the idea that as a moral being we may take a stand against the abortion tainted vaccine because the Church doesn’t hold there to be a moral obligation to take vaccines generally, but this isn’t a religious obligation and doesn’t attract a religious exemption under the law.
Russ@ 10:36a-
I don’t question the good will of those who, following the guidance of the CDF, have opted to take the vaccine. In my judgment, admittedly a personal one but one which I think is shared by many others, the evil involved extends beyond the singular act of abortion from which the cell line was taken. The CDF statement and other associated Church documents in so far as I know, focus on that singular act and not others which are closely linked to it.
The abortion was not conducted under “normal” circumstances. Of necessity it was performed in a particularly heinous manner in which the organs had to be “fresh” in order to be of any use at all. There is very good reason to believe that the helpless baby was dissected while still alive, in a manner comparable to a partial birth abortion. Further, the manufacturers of these products must have known of the heinous, torturous manner of the abortion in question. And, knowing this, they chose to market these products. One who uses them is participating not in the act of abortion, but in the stream of commerce associated with it, and aiding in the profiteering enterprise closely connected with it. Is that to be totally set aside in the moral calculation?
I acknowledge that there can be compelling reasons to take these products and I condemn no one for doing so. But I would submit that at a minimum, all involved including researchers and manufacturers alike, should be strictly called to account. Further, ethical means should be encouraged. Indeed there are developers who are committed to using ethical means. I think prudence dictates that serious consideration be given to awaiting the development and marketing of such products while in the meantime focusing more on treatment and preventative measures; both of which have been badly neglected IMO, by our governing authorities.
Many of us are struggling mightily with this. I hope to maintain an attitude of prayer and extend good will to all as we work our way through this.
This is the great issue for Catholics. The normal moral analysis applied through the Church’s history is insufficient to persuade many that the horrors of the evil that produced the cell line, and the motivations we attribute to those who conducted the research, testing, production and marketing of the vaccines (since we don’t have direct witness evidence) do not overcome our revulsion. And yet, we live in a world where cooperation with evil is everywhere around us. If we don’t use the traditional framework that the Church has traditionally used, we are left with powerful but subjective emotion driving our decisions. This is contrary to what the Church has always taught. I do not question the sincerity or intentions of those who choose what is, in effect, a more onerous form of witness against abortion, and I trust their reward in heaven will reflect this. It isn’t what the Church requires, but there have always been those who devote themselves to practices and rigours, mortifications and penances not demanded of others. I simply suggest it ought not be an expectation or requirement, and it doesn’t rise to the level that attracts legal protection – the motivation is religious but every motivation regarding decisions we make as Catholics is formed by our religion. In an emergency like what we have lived through for the past 20 months, I am not convinced that a limited number of specific sectors (health care, education, etc) do not face such a dire circumstance that mandatory vaccination is not a reasonable response. Perhaps not the “correct” one if it is possible to be absolutist, but it isn’t unreasonable as a prudential decision.
This is the great issue for Catholics. The normal moral analysis applied through the Church’s history is insufficient to persuade many that the horrors of the evil that produced the cell line, and the motivations we attribute to those who conducted the research, testing, production and marketing of the vaccines (since we don’t have direct witness evidence) do not overcome our revulsion. And yet, we live in a world where cooperation with evil is everywhere around us. If we don’t use the traditional framework that the Church has traditionally used, we are left with powerful but subjective emotion driving our decisions, which I s is contrary to what the Church has always taught. I do not question the sincerity or intentions of those who choose what is, in effect, a more onerous form of witness against abortion, and I trust their reward in heaven will reflect this. It isn’t what the Church requires, but there have always been those who devote themselves to practices and rigours, mortifications and penances not demanded of others.
I simply suggest it isn’t an expectation or requirement, and it doesn’t rise to the level that attracts legal protection – the motivation is religious but every motivation regarding decisions we make as Catholics is formed by our religion. I am not convinced that a limited number of specific sectors (health care, education, etc) do not face such a dire circumstance that mandatory vaccination is not a reasonable response. Perhaps not the “correct” one if it is possible to be absolutist, but it isn’t unreasonable as a prudential decision.
Man made RNA crosses a line. God made us in His image and likeness – and He created with DNA and RNA – meant to carry down the line of humanity. And now man thinks he can be like God and create with man-made RNA. This will not end well.
Pingback: Ancient Pagan Prophecies of Jesus, Childhood Memories of Grape Juice Communion, and More Great Links! - JP2 Catholic Radio