With so many challenges facing us today when it comes to COVID—new variants, shifting directives from numerous authorities, endless questions about so many complex factors—I was heartened to read this bit of sensitive sanity from an American Cardinal:
It goes without saying that this will also mean rejecting an authoritarian or paternalistic way of dealing with people that lays down the law, that pretends to have all the answers, or easy answers to complex problems, that suggests that general rules will seamlessly bring immediate clarity or that the teachings of our tradition can preemptively be applied to the particular challenges confronting couples and families.
Perhaps you missed it. If so, there’s a good reason: the quote, while indeed by an American prelate, has nothing to do with COVID. It is from a February 9, 2018 address titled “Pope Francis’ Revolution of Mercy: Amoris Laetitia as a New Paradigm of Catholicity”, delivered by Cardinal Blase Cupich at the Von Hügel Institute, in Cambridge, England.
I mention and quote it because last week Cardinal Cupich published a column with the rather rigid, black-and-white title, “Getting the COVID-19 vaccine is a moral imperative”. He applauds the growing numbers of Americans getting the COVID shots, and says: “Controlling the growth of the contagion is critical, making universal vaccination a moral imperative.” He states it is “promising” that “60% of Americans agree with the statement, ‘Because getting vaccinated against COVID-19 helps protect everyone, it is a way to live out the religious principle of loving my neighbors.’”
Now, that may be praiseworthy. Maybe not. But it is simply beside the point. Neither the pope, nor his doctrinal dicastery, nor any serious moral theologian has argued or asserted that getting the vaccine is a moral imperative.
In fact, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith explicitly said the opposite, a year ago: “At the same time, practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary.” Individual Catholics are free to use their prudential judgment and make informed decisions, while following their consciences, about the COVID shots.
Cupich, in his column, of course never mentions the conscience. I point this out because he has a notable record of invoking “conscience” when it comes to matters of sexual morality. For instance, six years ago this month he stated:
When people who are in good conscience, working with a spiritual director, come to a decision that they need to follow that conscience. That’s the teaching of the church. So in the case of people receiving Communion in situations that are irregular, that also applies.
The question then was, ‘Does that apply to gay people?’ My answer was, ‘They’re human beings, too.’ They have a conscience. They have to follow their conscience. They have to be able to have a formed conscience, understand the teaching of the church, and work with a spiritual director and come to those decisions. And we have to respect that.
No mention of a “moral imperative” there. And that isn’t too surprising, as Cupich has a flawed and problematic understanding of conscience, as I’ve examined in detail.
Meanwhile, we are left with this uncomfortable fact: some Church leaders are more confident, or even outrightly brazen, in turning vaccines into an issue of morality than they are of turning sexual morality into a serious issue—one that affects lives and souls in ways that are physically, emotionally, relationally, and eternally damaging.
To be clear, I have declined to take the existing COVID shots primarily because of concerns about efficacy and safety, not to mention necessity. I am also curious about the increasingly religious, even cultish, nature of those who insist that the vaccines are the way, the truth, and the life. The obsession with the shots is not really rooted in science, just as the fear-mongering about COVID betrays a technocratic vision of life that is, in many ways, far more concerning on a social and civilizational level than is COVID itself.
That being said, if you decide the shots are for you, I have no interest in stopping you or making any moral judgments about your choice. But declaring that getting the COVID-19 vaccine is a “moral imperative” is a bridge too far. Not even Pope Francis’s CDF went there.
The above comes from a Dec. 24 column by Carl Olson in Catholic World Report.
I wish pieces like this would convict those for whom they are published (and their supporters), but as *everything* has been politicized and demonstrable logical contradiction is no kind of impediment for adherents to progressive ideology, I fear the defenders of Cd Cupich and his posse will simply say, ‘meh’..
Inconsistent thinking isn’t a problem for progressives because they’re never, and I mean never, in situations or groups that would challenge them on anything. It’s the Emperor’s New Clothes Redux.
A frequent criticism that Our Lord leveled at the Pharisees was, on the one hand, ignoring God’s Law when it was clearly stated and, on the other hand, inventing rules not in the Law. In this matter it includes those Traddies who accuse others of sin for taking a vaccine “tainted” by abortion (which the Vatican has said is remote material cooperation, if at all), as well as Progressives who accuse vaccine refuseniks of being part of a “MAGA death cult” (when the Vatican declares that vaccination has to be voluntary). Can we please knock it off and stick to the practical arguments for or against the jab without adding “thus saith the LORD” to our merely human opinions?
You want “practical arguments” against the jab? Here is one IMPORTANT argument:
‘ Hundreds of Fully Vaccinated Oregon Residents Die of COVID-19
https://www.westernjournal.com/report-hundreds-fully-vaccinated-oregon-residents-die-covid-19/
Yes, yes, I know it’s “misinformation”
No it is incomplete information unless all you want to know is if anyone who has been vaccinated has died and how many in Oregon.
Meanwhile Bella, thousands of unvaxxed Oregonians have died of the virus. Practically most who have died were unvaxxed, if you want to be practical.
Do “practical” arguments therefore outweigh “ethical” arguments? Especially when the Vatican can’t find a reason to enforce Canon 915?
His Eminence is a very effective guide for the faithful: just do the opposite of what he says and you’ll be safe.
Things are confusing. If I am getting medical advice from a cardinal, should I get moral advice from a doctor?
Love my Neighbor then goes like this. Hey lady, abort your baby and donate it for research to invent a so called vaccine. I’m so tired of the Cowards. Their day will come.
Would Christ minister to the unvaxxed? Cuspich says no
How do you know for sure? Sad, sad, sad.
That is a lie
Perhaps the author and the commenters here do not understand the meaning of the word “imperative.”
I
As with most social media, sites supporting a given worldview will approach just about every topic in a way that confirms that view or at least denigrates or denounces an opposing view. The anti-vaccination paradigm (fetal tissue, religious rights, etc) has been used as a way to allow and promote a moral correctness. Uh oh, but religious leaders are also saying one needs to for the good of all – such a paradox for the cognitive Catholic to contemplate. Now, as f or me, as an aged teacher, I took all the shots, not only for my sense of safety bit my high schoolers as well. We mask in class. Now, if a reader here chooses to not vaccinate, my suggestion. Is stay at home, wear a mask when going anywhere, etc. This is to reduce your exposure and potentially getting COVID, but also, in case you’re asymptomatic but positive (but untested and unaware) and could expose others. Imagine yo know you are positive, but feel okay. You visit your elder aunt. Your aunt contracts and dies of COVID, and you realize that it wss uou who gave it to her. How will you confess that the confessional, or job might you tell the rest of her family? So why take that chance?
Did you also suggest that restaurants remove oysters from their menus so they could protect the immunocompromised? Did you also suggest that unmarried individuals immediately confine themselves to arrest the spread of human immunodeficiency virus? Did you also suggest that travel to sub-Saharan nations end to prevent the spread of Ebola virus? All for “the greater good”?
Testing of newlyweds for STDs was common at one time, is it your intention to reinstate that? Sure, test for HIV. But quarantine is not indicated in sexually transmitted diseases, silly Paul.
Is there Ebola currently affecting travel?
There’s a difference between asking a question about a mitigation measure and advocating for that measure. Do you consider the difference “silly”?
Life involves risks every day. Get over it or just stay home.
I don’t know from moral-imperative, but here is some data worth pondering, even if it is a few days old. From the CDC …
Cases in the U.S.:
Unvaccinated 451 cases per 100K population
Vaccinated 134 cases per
Boosted 48 cases per
Deaths from Covid
Unvaccinated 6.1/ 100K population
Vaccinated 0.5/ per
Boosted 0.1 per
For me, that is argument enough to get vaccinate three times
Bob One I know you will do whatever your oligarch overlords tell you to do. Bob One how about 7, 8, 9, 10 times will it ever end No because people like you wont let it end. No more vax ,no more masks. no more obeying
I assume that your announcement of “No more” applies to all vaccines, and to all regulations dealing with public health. I assume that you didn’t allow your children, if you have them, to receive their recommended four shots of the polio vaccine, or measles vaccine or, or…800,000 deaths from a virus that is mutating across the country just doesn’t seem right to me. It seems worse to say that it is ok to infect others because I don’t like wearing a mask. It seems selfish to avoid getting vaccinated when that can help slow the spread of the virus. If you don’t want to do it for yourself, do it for others. I’ve had a bad case of the virus, before vaccines, and I can tell you that it isn’t anything you should wish on anyone.
You assume wrong, Bob One. When very last of our freedom have been wiped out, I will hold people like Bob One responsible, him and his group think.
Today Cupich issued norms that doom the TLM.
i’ve read an article about it and all seems in accordance with the Church.
I think perhaps instead of writing the truth, you are writing you anxieties.
“Do not be afraid. Just have faith.” Mark 5:36
A Cardinal of the Church states, “Getting the COVID-19 vaccine is a moral imperative.” And, the same Cardinal states “gay couples” engaging in immoral sex should receive blessings. Did he fail in his studies of Scripture and Catholic moral theology? (And, he now oversees Mundelein, one of the larger seminaries.) Pray for this Cardinal, who will likely be voting in the next papal election. Lord, have mercy on us all! Come, Lord Jesus!
“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isa. 5:20.)
Could you please give your source for the statement that Cardinal Cupich “states that gay couples engaging in immoral sex should receive blessings”?
Thank you .
Of course and, in part, an opposition to a ban on blessing practicing homosexual couples logically implies no objection to doing so. The Vatican issued the ban because German bishops and some others were publicly calling for such.
qui tacet consentire videtur
https://www.newwaysministry.org/2021/03/17/cardinal-cupich-elton-john-and-lgbtq
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-vatican-lgbt-resistance/vatican-ruling-on-same-sex-couples-prompts-defiance-pain-confusion-idUSKBN2B923D
https://www.ncronline.org/news/theology/bishops-criticize-vaticans-ban-blessing-same-sex-couples
If the Cardinal has spoken out against blessing people currently engaging in immoral sex, both straight and gay, please let me know. I’ll admit I’m wrong.
anonymous clergyman, all of those are the same quote and he absolutely did not state that gay couple engaging in immoral sex should receive blessings.
He did not oppose a ban on blessing practicing homosexual couples. He said the ban was nothing new.
I do not know why you would misquote him. Perhaps you read something into it that was not there.
cd, fair enough. I just did a quick web search. That said, I do think he said that at one time. Do you honestly not think he’s engaging in ecclesial political speech? Why would dissenters, like New Ways and the NC Reporter, point him out as one who publicly opposed restating the ban on such “blessings?” And, he did do that, opposed clearly restating Catholic moral teaching on the matter. As I noted above, it needs to be restated in large part due to what some German bishops and priests have done recently. If all clergy were simply being Catholic and acting accordingly, it wouldn’t have to be restated. Some things are worth restating. If you’re married, I hope you’ve told your spouse on more than one occasion that you love him or her (and by spouse, I’m presuming of the other gender). Why do we recite the Creed at Sunday Mass? Maybe because it bears repeating. If your pastor said your parish was no longer going to recite the Creed because it’s, to use your words, “nothing new,” wouldn’t it raise a question in your mind about your pastor’s belief in the Creed and its value? One and done doesn’t apply to many important matters.
Today’s response, issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, offers nothing new on the Church’s teaching on the Sacrament of Matrimony. Regardless, it needs to be read in the context of the teachings in the Catechism and the encouraging statements of Pope Francis to LGBTQ persons about their relationship to the church, as well as his urging that pastors welcome them with respect and sensitivity, recognizing, as the Congregation response does today, the many positive elements in same-sex relationships, “which are in themselves to be valued and appreciated.” Yet, the understandable reaction among many to this response will be disappointment. This should prompt us in the Church and in the archdiocese to redouble our efforts to be creative and resilient in finding ways to welcome and encourage all LGBTQ people in our family of faith.
This is his statement. Why not just quote it? Then you don’t bear false witness.
I actually had a pastor who removed the Creed from the Mass. I prayed for him hard and often. He eventually returned it to the Mass.
If everybody who hated or judged Cupich really prayed for him, it would help him and the whole church.
Yes, indeed Cupich did lay down the hammer on the TLM in Chicago yesterday in the name of “unity,” please Cardinal spare me the unity bit. He did the same thing in Rapid City South Dakota when he was bishop there, so there is no surprise in his nasty mean action. Dr. Taylor Marshall has a fine video of the Cupich decree today on YouTube telling just why Cupich did what he did, no matter how much we say we accept the Second Vatican Council it does not matter to Cupich or Francis, their goal is to completely destroy the TLM which of course will never happen.
If you live in the Archdiocese of Chicago and you feel that Cardinal Cupich has done something contrary to Holy Mother Church. then you do not need to watch a Youtube video speculating on his reasons. You can let the Vatican know.
I have not finished reading about it (not going to watch the person you recommend)-I will only look at the decree itself and the Vatican documents) but from everything I have read so far, he is in complete compliance with the Church.
It may not be pleasing to you or Dr. Marshall, but that is not really relevant.
As to his motivation, we are not his judge.
It is happening right before your eyes. Let those who have eyes to see, see!
Here’s a link to the Cardinal’s very pastoral and unifying Christmas gift to Catholics who love our tradition:
https://www.ncregister.com/cna/cardinal-cupich-issues-new-restrictions-on-traditional-latin-masses
What a wonderful Christmas gift from the Cardinal to his flock! Maybe your Christmas gift back would be to accept Vatican II.