Supreme Court’s latest on religious vaccination exemptions

I agree with this decision.¹ Being “religious” does not give one the right to endanger the children of other parents. Being “religious” does not exempt you from any law you do not like, though it may exempt you from a very few laws. I do not believe in an absolute right of individual conscience.

A helpful list can be found here,² which lists different Christian denominations and other world religions, giving their stances on vaccination. Various religions hold quite nuanced stances, so this list is worth reading. There is a phenomenon called vaccine hesitancy. It is found in multiple religions. It concerns receiving certain vaccines based on their contents, their manner of manufacture, or a specific religious season.

For instance, Muslims will show a hesitancy or even a partial rejection to receiving a vaccine that has been developed using porcine products. About half of Muslims and nearly 90% of imans do not believe it appropriate to receive a vaccine during Ramadan. On the other hand: “Some muftis (experts in Islamic law) hold that immunization is obligatory (wajib) when the disease risk is high, and the vaccine has benefits that far outweigh its risk.”³

Various Christian groups have strong religious objections to receiving vaccines prepared on a substrate of aborted fetal tissue. Sporadic small Christian groups are completely against vaccination. Notably, the Roman Catholic Church has officially stated that sometimes vaccination is the lesser of two evils.

In an article from 2012, the National Catholic Register explained: “St. Thomas Aquinas enunciated this principle in the Summa Theologiae, where he noted that the object of the will’s choice is the possible good, not the impossible good (ST I-II q13, a5). Applying this principle, Blessed Pope John Paul II taught in Evangelium Vitae (73) that it is legitimate for a legislator to vote for a more restrictive law regarding abortion over a less restrictive law. He wrote: ‘This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects, in order to prevent worse legislation from being adopted.'”⁴

The same type of reasoning as was used in the 2012 Roman Catholic article was used again during the COVID pandemic to argue that a Roman Catholic could receive the COVID vaccine, even if it were researched using the tissue from an aborted fetus. See the statement by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, “Our love of neighbor should lead us to avoid giving scandal, but we cannot omit fulfilling serious obligations such as the prevention of deadly infection and the spread of contagion among those who are vulnerable just to avoid the appearance of scandal.”⁵ That is, the bishops found no solid moral reason to avoid vaccination if it means “the prevention of deadly infection and the spread of contagion among those who are vulnerable.” Thus, it appears that the principle enunciated by the Roman Catholic Church is that if the choice is a vaccine of dubious origin or the “spread of contagion among those who are vulnerable,” then individual conscience needs to yield to the lesser of two evils.

The Eastern Orthodox have no one authoritative source of religious doctrine outside of an Ecumenical Council or recognized Holy Tradition. The Russian Orthodox Church issued a very strong statement regarding vaccination: “Speaking on state television, Metropolitan Hilarion, head of the Moscow Patriarchate’s department for external church relations, said those refusing to vaccinate were committing ‘a sin for which they will have to atone throughout their lives’.”⁶

Meanwhile, the Greek Orthodox Church in America issued a powerful statement regarding vaccination. “In addition, although some may be exempt from the vaccination for clear medical reasons, there is no exemption in the Orthodox Church for Her faithful from any vaccination for religious reasons, including the coronavirus vaccine. For this reason, letters of exemption for the vaccination against the coronavirus for religious purposes issued by priests of the Archdiocese of America have no validity, and furthermore, no clergy are to issue such religious exemption letters for any reason.”⁷

So, finally, let me say that I fully support and obey my bishops. I also agree with the Roman Catholic bishops, though they are not my bishops. Therefore, I agree with the Supreme Court. There is no purported religious right that allows someone to put someone else’s child in danger of death or a sequela of morbidity by a preventable disease. Note that the same argument may not be used for other subjects.⁸ Each subject requires its own moral analysis. However, when it comes to vaccines, then your child need not be admitted to a school should you refuse to vaccinate them. All of our rights have limitations. No one has a right to infect someone else’s children. The Supreme Court is correct in defending the rights of others.

1. https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-vaccine-exemptions-connecticut-29927533dfb5bc82ee47668c630bc875 [↩]
2. https://www.vumc.org/health-wellness/resource-articles/immunizations-and-religion#:~:text=Most%20religions%20have%20no%20prohibition,vaccination%2C%20or%20specific%20vaccine%20ingredients. [↩]
3. ibid [↩]
4. https://www.ncregister.com/news/is-there-a-lesser-of-two-evils-oa54gmsn [↩]
5. https://www.usccb.org/moral-considerations-covid-vaccines [↩]
6. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/vaccinate-or-repent-russian-church-says-amid-hundreds-daily-covid-19-deaths-2021-07-05/ [↩]
7. https://www.goarch.org/-/holy-eparchial-synod-ccmmunique [↩]
8. In other words, to argue that your beliefs are causing some psychological harm or trauma to others outside your family is probably not going to be a valid argument. [↩]