By Deacon Mike Manno
(The
Wanderer) – If you are a Catholic student at the University of
Massachusetts and expect a conscience exemption to the COVID vaccine mandate,
think again. A university official has ruled that no Catholic student is
eligible for the exemption.
It seems that the vice chancellor of student affairs, Shawn
DeVeau, who has a long history in school administration, but no known
background in theology, made the ruling after a study of the Church’s
teachings. He explained his methodology thusly:
“When reviewing students’ appeals, I engage in a holistic
process: I review the student’s request, research the faith tradition on which
they are basing their request, and respond to the students based on my
research. . . . My process for reviewing appeals is to engage in an interactive
process to discuss the student’s specific circumstances and determine if the
exemption is based on a sincerely held religious belief” (emphasis mine).
In denying the student appeals, he quoted two statements
from the USCCB stating that the vaccines can be morally justified. Apparently
he forgot to check the statement of Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City,
Kans., and chairman of the USCCB Committee on Pro-Life Activities, whom we
quoted recently as stating that while it is prudent for people to get
vaccinated, some “could reasonably choose” to reject the abortion-tainted
vaccination to give “prophetic witness” against abortion; and he condemned
those who would require vaccination as a predicate for holding or keeping their
jobs.
“A society that fails to respect the rights of conscience
lacks a key element of the common good,” the archbishop wrote. “The most
charitable and just posture is to seek to accommodate the consciences of all
persons.”
Of course Mr. DeVeau might have been too busy with his
duties to have seen that. He also missed the legal point: conscience objections
are not limited to a specific religious belief but a sincerely held belief
irrespective of the religious status — or even non-status — of the individual.
But have no fear if you are a mandate proponent. The
administration will be monitoring whether those claiming to be exempt from Mr.
Biden’s mandate are “not abusing” the system.
Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy said that the
administration would be keeping tabs on those businesses and workers claiming
exemptions. He told CNN’s State of the Union program that “we’ve got to be
vigilant there and make sure that people are using them in the spirit that
they’re intended and not abusing them or asking for exemptions when they don’t
apply. That’s an area that we continue to monitor in the days and weeks ahead.”
But none of this allows for any discussion of the merits of
the mandate that doesn’t seem to fit in with the “one-size-fits-all” policy of
the administration’s White House medical regime which, to date, has not even
recognized the concept of natural immunity to the virus, nor with the spade of
unexpected problems with the vaccine. And that dynamic is playing out in places
where it has worked to the disadvantage of far too many citizens.
For example, in Lowville, N.Y., the Lewis County Health
System says that since some nurses are refusing to take the vaccine, the
hospital will have to close its maternity ward. In New York all healthcare
workers are required to get the vaccine. According to the hospital
administrator, 165 of the 464 hospital employees have refused to get it and 30
have resigned over the mandate.
In Texas, the CEO of the Brownfield Regional Medical Center
said that 20 to 25 percent of his staff will leave due to Mr. Biden’s mandate
that stipulates that healthcare workers in facilities that receive Medicaid or
Medicare funds will have to get the vaccine. Losing those workers, he said,
would likely cause his hospital to shut down.
Researchers and others are reporting on many unexpected
negative implications with the vaccine. One, among many, involves the negative
impact on breastfeeding mothers and their children.
According to LifeSiteNews, the government’s Vaccine Adverse
Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports that a six-week-old baby died from blood
clots and “severe inflammation of [his] arteries” after the child’s
breastfeeding mother received Pfizer’s vaccine.
“The mother had received her first dose on June 4, and her
baby started experiencing a high fever shortly thereafter [and]…passed away on
July 17.” According to the VAERS report, the mother wondered if “the spike
protein could have gone through the breast milk and caused an inflammatory
response in [her] child,” as the six-week-old was healthy prior to the
injection.
But, worry not, your concerns over the vaccine can be
ameliorated if you can do just one thing: Cross our southern border. True! Just
look at this exchange between Fox News’ Peter Doocy and the White House’s chief
propaganda minister, Jen Psaki:
Doocy: “Why is it that you’re trying to require anybody
with a job or anybody who goes to school to get the COVID-19 vaccine, but
you’re not requiring that of migrants that continue walking across the southern
border into the country?”
Propaganda Minister Psaki: “Well, look, our objective is to
get as many people vaccinated across the country as humanly possible. And so
the [mandate is] an effort to empower businesses, to give businesses the tools
to protect their workforces. That’s exactly what we did. But certainly we want
everybody to get vaccinated.”
Doocy: “But it’s a requirement for people at a business
with more than 100 people, but it’s not a requirement for migrants at the
southern border.”
Propaganda Minister Psaki: “That’s correct.”
With that huge loophole in the system, why is it so
important to risk side-effects and the loss of jobs and even risk the closing
of hospitals and other businesses to try to vaccinate nearly everybody else?
Yet the administration and its allies apparently will try to do everything to
eliminate conscience and medical objections to the vaccine including attempts
to ostracize the unvaxed.
Recently, former Obama Secretary for Health and Human
Services Kathleen Sebelius was part of the pile-on, suggesting that if you are
unvaccinated you should not be able to work, roam freely, or have access to children.
She, like several other prominent pro-mandate observers, hinted that the
unvaccinated are responsible for COVID deaths.
And some courts are even jumping into the fray. In
Illinois, a judge during a routine child support hearing stripped a mother of
all parenting time when she said she had not been vaccinated. The judge later
withdrew the order but the father’s attorney is asking that it be reimposed.
In an Ohio court, getting the jab was a requirement for
probation. In Georgia some judges are making the jab a condition of reduced
sentencing, in Louisiana it will reduce community service time.
In an adjacent matter, the Federation of State Medical
Boards said that physicians who spread COVID vaccine misinformation risk
disciplinary action by state medical boards, including loss of their medical
licenses. The American Board of Emergency Medicine made a similar announcement.
Neither organization defined “misinformation,” but you can be sure it means
disagreeing with Mr. Biden.
And disagreeing with Mr. Biden’s ideas about his fix-all
elixir is apparently the touchstone for all that may follow. He says it’s not
about freedom but public health and safety. Always the argument, it’s about
safety. But, of course, if it was, they’d close the southern border, study the
effects of natural immunity and those of possible therapeutics. Since they’re
not doing that this must be about something else.
Go figure!
As Benjamin Franklin once said: “Those who would give up
essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither
liberty nor safety.”
(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him
every Thursday at 10 a.m. CT on Faith On Trial on IowaCatholicRadio.com.)
No comments:
Post a Comment