Can parents claim a religious exemption against vaccinations
Aug 24, 2019 13:28:28 GMT
Post by Admin on Aug 24, 2019 13:28:28 GMT
The Angelus - April 2010
Can parents claim a religious exemption against vaccinations for their children?
The decision as to whether or not to accept vaccinations for one’s children is a very delicate and complex one. Many different factors enter into the decision, and since these factors differ greatly from one vaccine to another and from one family and one individual to another, there can be no one standard answer to the vaccination question. The essential consideration is the proportion between the risk of complications from the vaccine and the potential benefit to be gained both by the individual and by society as a whole. This proportion is not easy to evaluate, since there are many well-documented, medically acknowledged complications (such as fever, seizures, neurological complications), and then there are the other difficulties that might not be scientifically proven to be a consequence of any particular vaccine, but for which many believe that there is a good index of suspicion, such as compromising of the natural immunity to infectious disease, and other ill-defined but real problems that have often been linked to vaccinations, such as learning disabilities and autism. All this has to be balanced against the frequency and gravity of the infectious disease against which the parents desire to protect their children.
In principle the evaluation of this proportion is a medical consideration and not a religious one, and the exemption from vaccinations that people request is on medical grounds, because they consider that the dangers outweigh the potential gain. It would not be right to claim a religious exemption for a decision of this nature. This is the false attitude of those religious sects that refuse to acknowledge the real value of modern medical science. Indeed, it is not the function of the Church to determine which vaccinations are proportionate, and which are not, and whether vaccinations have a negative impact on the immune system or are responsible for autism or other such disorders.
However, involved in this whole question of vaccination, there is a principle of natural law, namely that parents have the responsibility and consequently the right to make these kinds of decisions for their children. It is only indirectly, then, inasmuch as the Church defends this right of parents enshrined in the natural law, that this question could be considered a religious one, and religious exemption could be claimed.
This principle of natural law is clearly stated in the 1917 Code of Canon Law:
Note that parents’ rights are not limited to the area of education, but include every aspect of life. If the Church defends parents’ rights over those of the State in the area of education in particular, since these are the rights that modern secularists attack most vehemently, the same principles apply also to issues of health, such as vaccinations.
It was in his encyclical on the Christian Education of Youth (1929) that Pope Pius XI, quoting St. Thomas Aquinas, explained the basis of this inviolable right of the family:
The Pope comments on this, pointing out that “this duty on the part of the parents continues up to the time when the child is in a position to provide for itself,” applying this to the inviolable right of parental education. However, the same argument can be applied to all health-related issues, as Canon 1113 explicitly states.
In the same encyclical, Pope Pius XI answers the revolutionary objections of those who would want to overturn the natural law, making the child belong primarily to the State, and consequently giving the State responsibility in all such matters, over and above the parents:
Questions and Answers
Fr. Peter R. Scott
Fr. Peter R. Scott
The decision as to whether or not to accept vaccinations for one’s children is a very delicate and complex one. Many different factors enter into the decision, and since these factors differ greatly from one vaccine to another and from one family and one individual to another, there can be no one standard answer to the vaccination question. The essential consideration is the proportion between the risk of complications from the vaccine and the potential benefit to be gained both by the individual and by society as a whole. This proportion is not easy to evaluate, since there are many well-documented, medically acknowledged complications (such as fever, seizures, neurological complications), and then there are the other difficulties that might not be scientifically proven to be a consequence of any particular vaccine, but for which many believe that there is a good index of suspicion, such as compromising of the natural immunity to infectious disease, and other ill-defined but real problems that have often been linked to vaccinations, such as learning disabilities and autism. All this has to be balanced against the frequency and gravity of the infectious disease against which the parents desire to protect their children.
In principle the evaluation of this proportion is a medical consideration and not a religious one, and the exemption from vaccinations that people request is on medical grounds, because they consider that the dangers outweigh the potential gain. It would not be right to claim a religious exemption for a decision of this nature. This is the false attitude of those religious sects that refuse to acknowledge the real value of modern medical science. Indeed, it is not the function of the Church to determine which vaccinations are proportionate, and which are not, and whether vaccinations have a negative impact on the immune system or are responsible for autism or other such disorders.
However, involved in this whole question of vaccination, there is a principle of natural law, namely that parents have the responsibility and consequently the right to make these kinds of decisions for their children. It is only indirectly, then, inasmuch as the Church defends this right of parents enshrined in the natural law, that this question could be considered a religious one, and religious exemption could be claimed.
This principle of natural law is clearly stated in the 1917 Code of Canon Law:
Parents are under a grave obligation to see to the religious and moral education of their children, as well as to their physical and civic training, as far as they can, and moreover to provide for their temporal well being. (Canon 1113)
It was in his encyclical on the Christian Education of Youth (1929) that Pope Pius XI, quoting St. Thomas Aquinas, explained the basis of this inviolable right of the family:
The child is naturally something of the father…so by natural right the child, before reaching the use of reason, is under the father’s care. Hence it would be contrary to natural justice if the child, before the use of reason, were removed from the care of its parents, or if any disposition were made concerning him against the will of the parents. (Divini Illius Magistri, Angelus Press, p. 20)
In the same encyclical, Pope Pius XI answers the revolutionary objections of those who would want to overturn the natural law, making the child belong primarily to the State, and consequently giving the State responsibility in all such matters, over and above the parents:
On this point the common sense of mankind is in such complete accord, that they would be in open contradiction with it who dared maintain that the children belong to the State before they belong to the family, and that the State has an absolute right over their education. Untenable is the reason they adduce, namely that a man is born a citizen and hence belongs primarily to the State, not bearing in mind that before being a citizen man must exist; and existence does not come from the State, but from the parents, as Leo XIII wisely declared: “The children are something of the father, and as it were an extension of the person of the father; and, to be perfectly accurate, they enter into and become part of civil society, not directly by themselves, but through the family in which there were born…and therefore the father’s power is of such a nature that it cannot be destroyed or absorbed by the State, for it has the same origin as human life itself. (Rerum Novarum)
Inasmuch as the Church defends with insistence the natural right of the family in the question of vaccinations, as all other issues necessary for the temporal well-being of children, a right that modern society tends to deny, it is certainly possible and at times prudent to claim a religious exemption from vaccinations. However, it must be understood that it is not up to the Church any more than to the State to determine which vaccinations ought to be given and which ought not. All that the Church can do is to condemn those vaccinations in which immorality is involved. This could be in the production of the vaccine, as in the case of those derived from aborted fetal cell lines, or in the life style that the vaccine encourages, such as the HPV vaccine, effective for only five years, when given to pre-teen girls to protect against venereal disease and the higher incidence of cervical cancer that is its consequence.
[Emphasis - The Catacombs]