| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
questions answered
by wm. b. smith
Culture of Death?
Question: Some pro-life literature warns against vaccinations for rubella and chicken pox because the vaccines were originally cultivated from human cells taken from aborted humans. One states bluntly: “Don’t infect your child with the culture of death!” What is the morality of this?
Answer: I find myself in substantial agreement with E. J. Furton, “Vaccines Originating in Abortion” in Ethics & Medics 24:3 (March 1999) pp. 3-4. Since Furton has more space to respond there than I do here, that issue of Ethics & Medics is worth careful reading and close study. (As an aside, Ethics & Medics is a monthly newsletter published by the National Catholic Bioethics Center (Boston) that is a great contemporary resource: scientifically up-to-date and always providing a reliable Catholic perspective on current biomedical questions.)
Back to your question—vaccines begin with the growth of a weakened strain of a known virus in a culture. Two human cell lines (MRC-5 and WI-38) were used to grow weakened virus strains that had their origin in cells taken originally from the lung tissue of two aborted fetuses in the 1960s. Human cell lines could have been taken from other sources —avoiding the moral question entirely—but these were not as their manufacturer, Merck & Co., admits. Cell lines are begun with undifferentiated cells from human or animal embryos that are long-lasting and friendly to viruses. Continued division is then chemically stimulated so that the resulting cultures are kept in stock.
Thus, “Meruvax,” the widely used vaccine for rubella (German measles) uses the WI-38 cell line; the chicken pox vaccine “Varivax” uses both MRC-5 and WI-38.
Thus, the question: Does immunization with these vaccines involve the Catholic parent in some kind of “cooperation” with evil? In moral theology, “cooperation” means assistance, help, aid-and-abet, facilitate, complicity. (Of course, “cooperation” in good is recommended; however, it is “cooperation” in evil that raises difficult moral questions.)
Assessing “cooperation” in evil involves at least two factors: Intention and Causality. Thus, formal cooperation obtains when one helps some evil and agrees with it and in it: formal cooperation in evil is always wrong. However, it often happens that the cooperator does not agree with nor concur in some evil, yet some good or neutral work or act of his is connected with the performance of or completion of some evil. This is what the textbooks call material cooperation; i.e., the cooperator does not agree with nor approve of the evil deed but some work of his is somehow connected with it.
Since he does not agree this is not formal cooperation! But, the closeness, proximity or immediacy of that causal (helping) connection must be examined and assessed morally to determine its permissibility. Immediate material cooperation (without whose help the evil can’t be done) is considered the same as formal cooperation and is wrong (apart from some justice applications where life takes precedence over property).
Mediate material cooperation can be further distinguished as “proximate” or “remote,” “free” or “necessary.” These determinations are made according to the actual, factual circumstances in a given case. I think there is widely shared general agreement among reliable moralists in these areas, but some prudential assessments of highly circumstantial cases may not generate unanimous agreement. Perhaps, this is true here for some.
In my judgment, the use of vaccines derived from an originally aborted source so long ago (1965) does not qualify as true cooperation. I would not approve, nor, I presume, would any faithful Catholic parent approve, of any direct abortion. However, this connection is so long ago in time and so remote in causality, that I do not see how this is properly called true cooperation.
The British Bishops (1994) properly described some current medical research as “parasitic” toward abortion, but they also noted a considerable separation between the abortion act (1965) and the (then) current production of vaccine (1994). Indeed, the original tissue was removed after the aborted fetus was clinically dead and the individuals involved in the vaccine production were not involved at all in the abortion act. Where there is and remains no support for abortion, it seems to me permissible for individuals to use the vaccine.
Some will argue that while there is no direct cooperation here, there is, nonetheless, some ambiguous, even contradictory witness, and questions about scandal either given or taken. For some, profiting or benefiting from the results of some distant evil sounds like a good end will justify or camouflage a bad means to that good end (result).
There is a serious present concern. Rather than a time-strained retroactive application of direct cooperation to a wrongful act over 30 years ago, it seems to me Catholic witness does require opposition to the development of new vaccines, therapies and studies from aborted fetal tissue today.
Most commercial firms are tone deaf to ethical protests and have developed public-relations techniques that specialize in DIS-information and computerized letters that rarely go beyond “Thank you for sharing.”
Nevertheless, well-targeted protests are not a waste of time. A single Catholic parish in Olney, Maryland called the American Cancer Society to caution and accountability against human-embryo research with positive results (Our Sunday Visitor [8/8/99] pp. 8-9).
All Catholic parties are opposed to the “Culture of Death” but one-liners like “don’t infect your child with the culture of death” do require distinctions. Alternatives to fetal cell lines do exist for some vaccines. Human cell line WI-38 and MRC-5 were originally obtained from aborted fetuses. Most other vaccines do not require human cell lines. Only viral vaccines require cells within which the virus will reproduce. Many viral vaccines (e.g., polio; mumps) can use chicken embryos or monkey kidney cell lines. Bacterial vaccines (e.g., diphtheria; tetanus) require the cultivation of the bacteria in a culture medium only.
Apostolic Succession
Question: The Pastor in our parish bulletin writes that “apostolic succession” is a medieval accretion, exaggerated by counter-reformation emphases, and a non-problem for ecumenical reunion since it is theologically an “open question.” Is this so?
Answer: No, this is not an open question; rather, it is a point of Catholic doctrine all Catholics must hold and believe.
Back in the late 1970s and early 1980s, E. Schillebeeckx published two studies on “ministry” wherein he convinced himself that he had established the dogmatic possibility of an “extraordinary minister” of the eucharist in the sense that Christian communities without priests could choose one of their number as president who would be ipso facto qualified to preside over the life of such communities and to consecrate the eucharist in them, without having received priestly ordination in the apostolic succession.
On June 13, 1984, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith pointed out to Prof. Schillebeeckx that his position on ministry was not reconcilable with the authoritative teaching of the Church in CDF Sacerdotium Ministeriale (8/6/83). Consequently, his position on what he called this extraordinary minister could not be considered an “open question.”
In October of 1984, in a style perfected by Hans Küng and Richard McBrien, Schillebeeckx announced that his “next” book would clear everything up especially the theme of “apostolic succession.”
True to form, in the next book there was no formal rejection of Sacerdotium Ministeriale but just as surely there was no declaration of adherence to it; indeed, it was made the object of more and further critical analysis. For Schillebeeckx, apostolic succession through sacramental ordination represents a non-essential for the exercise of ministry and for the bestowal of the power to consecrate the eucharist.
For two years, exchanges and alleged clarifications went on between Schillebeeckx and the CDF. Finally, on September 15, 1986, the CDF issued a formal doctrinal notification: “For these reasons, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is obliged to conclude that the conception of the ministry as put forward by Professor Schillebeeckx remains out of harmony with the teaching of the Church on several important points. The mission of the Congregation in regard to the faithful obliges it to publish this judgment.” (For full text, confer Origins 16:19 [10/23/86] p. 344.)
Two points of some usefulness emerge here: one tactical and one substantive.
For tactics, some dissenting theologians do not formally deny Church doctrine, more often and more likely, they steadfastly refuse to affirm true doctrine. When challenged on the latter, some will then insist that their conscience is being invaded which neatly changes the subject and leads discussion away in a different direction. For this, the motu proprio of John Paul II, Ad Tuendam Fidem (6/29/98) is most helpful. Authentic Catholic doctrines are not just debating points for debate clubs to be merely acknowledged and criticized; they are to be held by believing Catholics since they are doctrine for life and faith.
For substance, correct doctrine on “apostolic succession” is neatly and concisely stated in the Catechism: “Christ himself chose the apostles and gave them a share in his mission and authority. Raised to the Father’s right hand, he has not forsaken his flock but he keeps it under his constant protection through the apostles, and guides it still through these same pastors who continue his work today. Thus, it is Christ whose gift it is that some be apostles, others pastors. He continues to act through the bishops” (CCC #1575). “Since the sacrament of Holy Orders is the sacrament of the apostolic ministry, it is for the bishops as the successors of the apostles to hand on the ‘gift of the Spirit,’ the ‘apostolic line.’ Validly ordained bishops, i.e., those who are in the line of apostolic succession, validly confer the three degrees of the sacrament of Holy Orders” (CCC #1576).
Please address questions to Msgr. Wm. B. Smith, St. Joseph’s Seminary, Dunwoodie,
Yonkers, N.Y. 10704.
Back to Catholic Information Center's Periodicals