[Arnt]

What? I live in a city where the catholic church is the biggest one, and hadn't noticed this at all. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-58573892 says it's not the church, it's some some sort of small subgroup, so... I'm as puzzled as the pope is, and still curious.

EDIT: if it puzzles the pope, then at least I don't have to feel ignorant about my ignorance ;)

[jimmygrapes]

The info in GP's link is clear that it is not a church position to be against vaccines in general, but against the involuntary (aka mandatory) application of them. The religious exemption is not "my religion doesn't let me get a vaccine" but rather "my religion doesn't let a secular entity force me to get a vaccine" - and many "antivaxx" types are of this exact thinking. The more the vaccines are pushed by those who have lied about other things or those secular entities that have a virtual or literal monopoly on violence physical or otherwise, the more the religious and moral pushback at the detriment of personal health/social responsibility.

If we really want more people to get vaccinated at this point, these mandates and constant campaigns need to back off for a bit. It needs to calm down to simple awareness campaigns of where to get vaccines (ala flu seasons in previous years), and legal/financial protections for lost wages/time off to get vaccinated (and recover from any side effects if necessary). What does NOT work is constant vitriolic rhetoric and fear mongering and othering and mandates and authoritarian dictates and celebrity admonishment/begging.

[Arnt]

Are you suggesting that (parts of) the catholic church are against vaccine mandates? Is this something new, because I hadn't heard anything about that when measles vaccines were made mandatory (still in a city where the catholics are the largest group)? I also haven't noticed the catholics being against state mandates in general.

(Also: I'm not asking for what isn't a reason/scope/description and I don't care to discuss what would be the best way to achieve anything or everything.)

[jimmygrapes]

Yes that is what I am suggesting, based off of the PDF provided above and it's referenced sources which I have pasted below for your convenience. As to the rest, point taken; I got carried away.

From the PDF: 1 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), “Note on the Morality of Using Some Anti-COVID-19 Vaccines,” December 17, 2020, n. 5: “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.” 2 See Pontifical Academy for Life, “Moral Reflections on Vaccines Prepared from Cells Derived from Aborted Human Foetuses,” June 9, 2005; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas personae, 2008, nn. 34-35; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Note on the Morality of Using Some Anti-COVID- 19 Vaccines,” nn. 1-3. When there is a sufficiently serious reason to use the product and there is no reasonable alternative available, the Catholic Church teaches that it may be permissible to use the immorally sourced product under protest. In any case, whether the product is used or not, the Catholic Church teaches that all must make their disagreement known and request the development of equal or better products using biological material that does not come from abortions. 3 See United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, 6th ed. (Washington, DC: USCCB Publishing, 2018), n. 28. Hereafter “ERDs.” 4 “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.” Catechism of the Catholic Church (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1993), www.vatican.va, n. 1790. Hereafter “CCC.” 5 See ERDs, nn. 32-33; nn. 56-57; Part Three, Introduction, para. 2; Part Five, Introduction, para. 3. 6 See ERDs, nn. 56-57. Both of these directives state that the proportionality of medical interventions is established “in the patient’s judgment.” 7 CCC, n. 1777, citing John Henry Cardinal Newman, "Letter to the Duke of Norfolk," V, in Certain Difficulties felt by Anglicans in Catholic Teaching II (London: Longmans Green, 1885), 248. 8 CCC, n. 1782, citing Second Vatican Council, Dignitatis humanae, December 7, 1965, n. 3.