Three archbishops, Glenn Davies (Anglican), Anthony Fisher (Roman Catholic), and Archbishop Makarios (Greek Orthodox), recently marched into the public arena to declare that the vaccine for COVID19 being developed in Oxford is ethically tainted. This is because it is based on a cell-line (HEK 293) originating from stem cells taken from foetal material from a voluntary abortion in 1972. In a jointly signed letter, they claim that this fact will raise serious issues of conscience for a proportion of our population. They ask the federal government not to make the use of this vaccine mandatory and that no one should be pressured to prescribe or dispense the vaccine or to consent to it being used on their dependents. They also ask that the government will ensure that an ethically uncontroversial alternative will be provided if one is available.
Archbishops Fisher and Davies, in particular, draw together two different approaches to moral theology. Roman Catholic moral theology is more developed and codified. It is also ordered under the authority of the magisterium of the Pope, and as such, is global in scope. The Anglican tradition has a different approach to moral theology and ethical questions which leaves a lot more scope for individual judgement. Whereas the Catholic history of moral theology has been more closely related to the penitential discipline of the church, the Anglican has been much more related to pastoral advice and formation of the members of the church.
In many respects, what makes the difference is the character of the authority at work in the two traditions. In the case of the Roman Catholic Church, they have a continuing institution in place (the Magisterium) that provides a direct address on the contemporary meaning of the church’s tradition. Anglicanism has a much more diffuse pattern of authority; there is certainly no overriding global institutional authority for Anglican moral theology. The constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia, for example, sets its fundamental declarations in relation to the historical origins of Christianity in Jesus Christ and the apostolic period, and identifies its particular pedigree in relation to the historical tradition of English Christianity.
Any statement that claims to be an Anglican position on this issue would need to set that account somewhere in the framework of Anglican notions of authority, the tradition of moral theology and the diversity of views these create. That would entail explaining the nature of the Anglican approach and the character of the community of faith that lies behind such a view. (Not even the Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops and its resolutions are regarded as representing the whole spectrum of Anglican views on any given matter.)
Want the best of Religion & Ethics delivered to your mailbox?
Sign up for our weekly newsletter.
In the present instance, the view to which Archbishop Davies gives his name is put forward ostensibly on behalf of a “proportion of our population” — but it also represents his personal view. When he was asked on ABC’s AM if he would take the Oxford vaccine, Davies said that he would rather not make that decision now but wait and see what develops. He was pressed on whether he would wait for a second vaccine if the first available was from Oxford University. “I probably would,” he replied, “but that would be a personal decision of mine and not a decision that I would bind anyone's conscience with.” In the Anglican framework it is, of course, hard to see how any Anglican archbishop could bind anyone’s conscience — the Anglican church is just not structured that way.
It is clear, however, that the views expressed in the letter of the three archbishops are very much Archbishop Davies’s personal views. His comments after the publication of the letter double down on the ethical problems in using any vaccine that used stem cells from aborted foetal material.
After the publication of the letter, Archbishop Fisher said that it was morally acceptable and Catholics were encouraged to take a vaccine made in this way to deal with this viral pandemic. These comments, unlike those of Archbishop Davies, soften and qualify the sharp tone of the open letter.
Roman Catholic moral theology
The position of the Roman Catholic Church has been clearly articulated for a long time, and has developed in relation to changing circumstances. Furthermore, during the tenure of Pope Francis there has clearly been something of a new beginning in this general area of bioethics.
On 8 September 2008, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) issued the instruction Dignitas Personae. It asserted earlier teaching without alteration: “Thus, the fruit of human generation, from the first moment of its existence, that is to say, from the moment the zygote has formed, demands the unconditional respect that is morally due to the human being in his bodily and spiritual totality.”
Three months later, on 12 December 2008, a detailed note from the CDF confirmed the authority of Dignitas Personae as participating “in the ordinary magisterium of the successor of Peter” and addressed new problems of conception. It specifically addressed fertilisation, the destruction of embryos, and gene therapy. In the last two paragraphs, it addresses the use of human “‘biological material’ of illicit origin” that has been produced apart from the research centre in which it is used:
According to this criterion, the use of “biological material” of illicit origin would be ethically permissible provided there is a clear separation between those who, on the one hand, produce, freeze and cause the death of embryos and, on the other, the researchers involved in scientific experimentation … Of course, within this general picture there exist differing degrees of responsibility. Grave reasons may be morally proportionate to justify the use of such “biological material.” Thus, for example, danger to the health of children could permit parents to use a vaccine which was developed using cell lines of illicit origin, while keeping in mind that everyone has the duty to make known their disagreement and to ask that their healthcare system make other types of vaccines available.
This clarification clearly extends the range of possibilities in regard to the use of stem cells from an aborted foetus.
The Pontifical Academy for Life was established by Pope John Paul II in 1996 to work in this area of moral theology. In October 2016, Pope Francis issued new statutes for the academy, coming into effect in 1 January 2017. Six months later, the membership of the Academy was almost completely changed with the introduction of new members and the departure of most of the existing members (the academy has forty-three members and five honorary members). One month later, on 31 July, the academy issued a document clarifying the medical and scientific nature of vaccination in collaboration the Italian Bishops’ Conference. The clarification was produced in the context of controversy in Italy about a rubella vaccine and a significant drop in vaccination rates. It stated:
The technical characteristics of the production of the vaccines most commonly used in childhood lead us to exclude that there is a morally relevant cooperation between those who use these vaccines today and the practice of voluntary abortion. Hence, we believe that all clinically recommended vaccinations can be used with a clear conscience and that the use of such vaccines does not signify some sort of cooperation with voluntary abortion.
As a result, “all recommended vaccinations can be used with a clear conscience.” This 2017 document thus is consistent with that of the CDF published in 2008.
These Vatican documents clearly assert that the wrong belongs to those involved in the original abortion, not the foetal material produced. Those developing a modern vaccine have no connection with those involved in the abortion and any claimed connection between the foetal material and the vaccine development does not exist in any morally significant way. What they say certainly does not prevent use of the vaccine produced in that way. Furthermore, in the rubella crisis in Italy vaccinations which used stem cells were positively encouraged.
On a number of fronts, Pope Francis has been broadening the context of bioethics by drawing it into the framework of the connectedness of the whole of humanity. This move can be seen in a number of later documents that relate to the field of bioethics.
The crucial element in these documents is the recognition of the wider setting of discussions about stem cells and vaccines, and thus the dramatic significance of the present pandemic. Thousands are dying daily. There is only the most rudimentary of treatment for the ill. Health systems around the world are being overwhelmed. The question of the material used in the preparation of a vaccine is thus set in the social context of an overwhelming public good for the whole of humanity. The actions of Pope Francis emphasise and extend the importance of the wider context of the good of humanity and the environment within which bioethics should be considered. The traditional teaching of Roman Catholic moral theology of proportionate good is thus given much more prominence by the renewal advocated by Pope Francis.
This cursory review of the Roman Catholic tradition sits oddly with the actual text of the recent letter of the three archbishops. That letter simply stated and re-enforced a line of connection between the aborted foetus material and the vaccine.
Bioethics in the Anglican Church of Australia
As far as I am aware the argument in the letter does not find any support in resolutions or canons of the Anglican Church of Australia, though it may be that one or another diocese may have passed an ordinance at their synod to that effect. There are no resolutions of the Lambeth Conference that refer to vaccines
The Anglican approach to bioethics is to be found in the literature, books, and articles written by scholars and others which may refer to the arguments of reports from synodical bodies or other organisations that fall within the general Anglican fold. This is a wide field and it contains a wide variety of opinions. Presenting something as Anglican requires setting it out in relation to this historical tradition.
What, then, of the Archbishops’ letter?
In the light of these overviews of the Roman Catholic and Anglican traditions, it is hard to know what to make of the archbishops’ claim:
But others again will draw a straight line from the ending of a human life in abortion through the cultivation of the cell-line to the use for manufacturing this vaccine; even if the cells have been propagated for years in a laboratory far removed from the abortion, that line of connection remains. They will be concerned not to benefit in any way from the death of the little girl whose cells were taken and cultivated, nor to be trivialising that death, and not to be encouraging the foetal tissue industry.
Of course, some kind of line can be made between the abortion and the development of the later cell-lines. It is perhaps an interesting historical line. But the question is not whether there is a line, but whether there is a line that has any moral significance in relation to the use of the vaccine. That is not explained or addressed in the archbishops’ letter. It is addressed in the Roman Catholic documents summarised above, and they found it was not morally significant for the argument.
The actual requests made by the three archbishops in their letter to the Prime Minister are that the Oxford vaccine be not mandatory, that no one will be coerced against their conscience in relation to the use or administration of the vaccine, and that an alternative vaccine not based on stem cells will be made available if one becomes is developed.
The government’s responsibility is to govern for the good of the whole, which includes respecting the rights and interests of individuals and groups. But rights and interests don’t exist in a vacuum. They exist within a complex of social relationships and the rights and interests of others. An individual’s conscience was tested in the two World Wars and the Vietnam War concerning military service. More recently, the conscience of an individual or group usually is tested in the courts in relation to matters such as blood transfusions. In the present case, we are confronted with an overwhelming pandemic which has disrupted the life of humanity across the globe.
In weighing decisions of moral action, Roman Catholic moral theologians speak of proportionate good in the balance with some wrong. Pope Francis has given grounds for greater weight to be given to this consideration. Anglicans tend to speak of the “general good” when balanced with the conscience or claimed right of an individual or sub-group. In the present social crisis, the proportionate or general good is expeditiously and effectively dealing with this global pandemic. We currently struggle with only practical steps in fighting this virus. What we really need is a reasonably effective vaccine. Hundreds of scientists around the world are working tirelessly to find such a vaccine.
The truly remarkable feature of this letter from the three archbishops is that there is no reference made to the general good in their discussion of the moral issues at play in the use of the Oxford vaccine. They describe this vaccine as “ethically tainted” and ask the government not to make it mandatory and to provide an alternative. But the mainline and clear teaching of recent Roman Catholic documents does not regard the vaccine as ethically tainted. On the contrary, as Archbishop Fisher stated in his clarification of the joint letter, the church encourages the use of the vaccine. Likewise, it is hard to find anything specific that would support the argument of the joint letter in Anglican material.
Beyond this important issue is the actual public effect of such a letter. There are many who, for their own reasons, are opposed to vaccinations in general. But the medical reasons adduced by “anti-vaxxers” have never gained any general support from qualified medical scientists — quite the contrary. This letter from prominent church officials may, in all probability, encourage such people and their cause. If that encouragement were to grow to a point where numbers of those not vaccinated in the community would compromise the effectiveness of a vaccine of any kind, then this letter from the three archbishops may bear an even greater responsibility.
No doubt the federal government will do what they have to do for the good of all, and in the circumstances they will have to do it as quickly as possible. The complication of a separate vaccine for those who object to the Oxford vaccine, or any vaccine developed using stem cells, would have to be measured in the light of its distraction or delay in the prompt and effective administration of a vaccine for the whole population.
It is my hope that this letter, with its highly dubious arguments, will not complicate or impede the efforts of the federal government in achieving the earliest available and most effective vaccination for Australia.
Rev. Dr Bruce Kaye is an Adjunct Research Professor at the Centre for Public and Contextual Theology, Charles Sturt University, and the former General Secretary of the Anglican Church of Australia.