Katholieke Stichting Medische Ethiek
24 april 2024

Vaticaanse diplomaat bij VN: “Een vaccin voor iedereen”

Statement At The ECOSOC Special Ministerial Meeting “A Vaccine For All”
By Msgr. Mirosław Wachowski, Under-Secretary for Relations with States

Ecosoc Special Ministerial Meeting “A Vaccine for All”
United Nations Headquarters, 16 APRIL 2021

Mr. President,

The COVID-19 pandemic has enveloped the entire world in a shared experience of illness, fear and loss and it has reminded us of our deep interconnectedness. We must work in fraternal solidarity to emerge from it together. Exercising that solidarity through universal access to vaccines, especially for those most in need, must be a priority.

Even as wealthy nations are now vaccinating their populations, many countries in the Global South have no vaccines at all. The Secretary-General’s recent assertation that 75% of all vaccines have been distributed in 10 countries, while 130 countries have zero vaccinations, is alarming. Due to poverty and fragile health infrastructures, billions of people live in what Pope Francis calls as a sort of “pharmaceutical marginality,” which is why he has said that “at an ethical level, if there is a possibility of curing a disease with a drug, it should be available to everyone, otherwise it creates injustice.”[1Pope Francis, Address to the Members of the Banco Farmaceutico Foundation, 19 September 2020.] The consequences of long delays in vaccination in the poorest countries means that there will be more needless deaths, as well as damage to healthcare, education, and poverty eradication efforts.

The international community must work together for the common good and find creative solutions. Enabling the production of vaccines in Africa, Asia, and Latin America through the sharing of patent information and through technical collaboration could accelerate the vaccination rate significantly while also building healthcare system capacity. Furthermore, it is crucial to provide them with the infrastructure to receive, store, transport and distribute vaccines across their territories. The Holy See welcomes the efforts undertaken through COVAX, which has begun delivering vaccines to developing countries and has pledged to meet at least twenty percent of the need. Pledges from governments and pharmaceutical companies to share vaccines with those most in need are also hopeful signs.

Furthermore, civil society organizations, and faith-based organizations in particular, play a key role in expanding the vaccinations. Supporting them and unleashing their full vitality can strengthen healthcare in the future.

In order to facilitate not only the local participation in vaccine development and distribution, but also to help developing countries recover from COVID-19, the question of their crippling debt burdens, worsened by the economic devastation caused by the pandemic, must be addressed. Debt forgiveness could free up funds that would allow such countries to improve healthcare systems and access to medical care, including in response to COVID-19.

Mr. President, we must act on the commitment to ensure equitable access to vaccines for all by working together in service of this common goal. Today’s meeting is an important step toward the concrete action needed to meet that urgent aim.

Thank you


Statement from Pro-Life Catholic Scholars on the Moral Acceptability of Receiving COVID-19 Vaccines

Ethics & Public Policy Center, 5 March 2021
Pontifical Academy for Life, 5 March 2021

Note: EPPC has organized the following statement from leading pro-life Catholic scholars, including EPPC President Ryan T. Anderson, EPPC board member and Princeton professor Robert P. George, and EPPC Fellow and Notre Dame professor O. Carter Snead, along with two professors at pontifical universities in Rome and other U.S.-based scholars, to explain why it is morally acceptable for pro-life citizens to receive any of the COVID-19 vaccines currently available.

The past year of suffering under the onslaught of COVID-19 has brought with it numerous ethical questions, and the advent of effective vaccines for COVID is no different. Foremost among the questions for those of us who are committed to defending the intrinsic equal dignity of all human beings from conception to natural death are these: in accepting any of the vaccines on offer, is one in any way endorsing or contributing to the practice of abortion, or is one in any way showing disrespect for the remains of an unborn human being? As to the vaccines currently or soon available in the United States, we agree with Bishop Kevin Rhoades, Chairman of the USCCB Committee on Doctrine, that the answer is no. While there is a technical causal linkage between each of the current vaccines and prior abortions of human persons, we are all agreed, that connection does not mean that vaccine use contributes to the evil of abortion or shows disrespect for the remains of unborn human beings. Accordingly, Catholics, and indeed, all persons of good will who embrace a culture of life for the whole human family, born and unborn, can use these vaccines without fear of moral culpability.

Common to the four major vaccines, produced by Moderna, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and AstraZeneca is some use of “immortalized” human cell lines. Ordinarily, cells taken from a body have a limited life span, undergoing only a fixed number of cell divisions before they arrest and die. For ongoing research, scientists prefer to use a “cell line,” or a population of cells derived from a single source that has been modified (typically by some form of genetic mutation) to divide indefinitely in culture. Such “immortalized” cell lines allow scientists to conduct many experiments on cells that are both genetically identical and routinely available in the laboratory.

HEK293 is one such commonly used line. The name “HEK” stands for “human embryonic kidney,” and “293” refers to the 293rd experiment conducted by the scientist who produced the cell line. The embryonic kidney cells were originally obtained from the remains of a deceased unborn child following what appears to be an elective abortion that took place in the Netherlands during the early 1970s. The exact circumstances of the abortion are not known, but the scientists producing the cell line were not directly involved and, crucially, the abortion was not performed for the sake of providing biological materials to researchers.

HEK293 cells are particularly susceptible to the introduction of foreign DNA, and they rapidly became a standard scientific workhorse, that is widely used by both basic scientists and by industry. Although there are currently many modified versions of HEK293s that optimize these cells for specific purposes, all of the HEK293 cells available around the world today were derived from the remains of a single unborn child that was aborted a half a century ago. Importantly, there is no ongoing use of aborted tissue to generate HEK293 cells, to modify these cells, or to maintain them in the laboratory. Thus, the use of HEK293 (and similar immortalized lines) does not create future incentives for more abortions.

How widely used are HEK293 cells? They are commonly used for testing processed foods produced by companies such as Kraft, Nestlé, Cadbury and others. Indeed, the great majority of processed/packaged food products available for sale in the United States are likely to contain ingredients produced or tested in HEK293 cells.

They are also used as an alternative to animal testing in the cosmetic and pharmaceutical industry. And their use in biomedical research is ubiquitous and has contributed to an enormous number of new medications and medical procedures developed over the last several decades. It thus seems fair to say that in addition to the use of HEK293 cells by the scientific community, nearly every person in the modern world has consumed food products, taken medications or used cosmetics/personal care products that were developed through the use of HEK293 cells in the food, biomedical and cosmetic industries.

The various vaccines have made different uses of the HEK293 cell line, with Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca using them for manufacture, Pfizer and Moderna for testing only. But these differences are irrelevant to the following questions:

  • Do any of the vaccines make more use than others of the mortal remains of unborn children from whom the cell lines were derived? The answer is no; as a matter of scientific fact, no fetal “body parts” are present in these immortal cell lines. The immortal cell lines are artifacts—biological products that have been modified and reproduced many times over, and they do not retain the natural function of the tissue from which they were derived. They are not “body parts” in any meaningful or morally relevant sense.
  • Does the production and use of any of the vaccines contribute to, cooperate with, or promote any abortion? Again, the answer is no, for the abortions from which cell lines such as HEK293 were derived happened decades ago, and no further fetal tissue is used or needed for the maintenance of these lines.

Common to all pro-life witness is recognition that the apparent elective abortion that led to the derivation of the HEK293 cell line was morally impermissible and involved the unjust taking of a human life. But to repeat, the HEK293 cell line currently used around the globe in scientific research and those like it do not contain the remains of any human being and so its use does not show disrespect for human remains, any more than the contemporary use of products, such as roads or train lines, that were constructed by unjustly enslaved human beings, or use of land unjustly taken, shows disrespect for those victims in the distant past.

As a descriptive matter, some pro-life advocates may prefer to use one vaccine rather than another in order to witness against the evil of abortion, or to signal special respect for the unborn babies whose lives were lost. Again, we agree with Bishop Rhoades that such a choice is a matter for their conscience. But we think it a mistake to say both that these vaccines are morally permissible to use and yet that some ought to be preferred to others. There appears to us to be no real distinction between the vaccines in terms of their connection to an abortion many decades ago, and thus the moral starting point is one of equivalence.

Moreover, there might be good reasons for some persons to prefer or to promote the vaccines, such as Johnson & Johnson, that use HEK293 (and PER.C6) for manufacture rather than testing, namely, that the J&J vaccine requires only one dose, does not require storage at extremely low temperature, and thus may be more useful in reaching remote or otherwise underserved populations. Those who have special reasons to take the J&J vaccine should not, we believe, be led to think that they are choosing something that in other ways is more morally tainted than the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.

Persons with access to these vaccines have strong moral reasons to take them: in doing so, they build up the herd immunity that will provide the greatest possible protection for the most vulnerable among us, including the elderly, those with pre-existing conditions, some minority populations, and the many other seemingly random victims of severe COVID-19. To be perfectly clear, we are not saying that people are justified in using and promoting these vaccines because the great goods they provide offset the evil of appropriating a prior wicked action. Rather, we believe that there is no such impermissible cooperation or appropriation here. The attenuated and remote connection to abortions performed decades ago and the absence of any incentive for future abortions offer little if any moral reasons against accepting this welcome advance of science.

Postscript (added March 11, 2021)

This brief postscript is to underscore what is already stated explicitly above and to avoid any confusion. By way of background, the statement was meant to offer a comparative ethical analysis of the use of the different COVID vaccines available in light of variations in their production (i.e., using immortalized cell lines in testing versus manufacture). After analyzing the question, we concluded (along with the USCCB and the CDF) that one may choose any of these vaccines to protect oneself or one’s community from transmission of the virus without (1) endorsing the abortion that preceded the development of the cell line (performed for reasons separate and independent such development), (2) incentivizing future abortions, or (3) disrespecting the memory or mortal remains of the baby whose cadaveric tissue was used and modified to create the cell line. Moreover, we concluded that there are not reasons rooted in concerns of moral culpability to choose one vaccine over another based on differences in production.

At the same time, we noted that there are those who share our pro-life commitments who might wish to choose one vaccine over another in order to express their prophetic witness in favor of a culture of life, to show special respect for the lives and memories of unborn children unjustly killed in abortion, and to avoid a coarsening of the moral sense in this context. We observed (with the USCCB) that such people should be free to make such choices as their consciences dictate. However, we were also clear that one is not morally required to make such a choice, and those who do not are not morally culpable.

On the other hand, our statement did not assert that there is a binding moral duty to take any of the vaccines. It did, however, explain why, in our judgment, there are strong moral reasons to do so, given the apparent benefits for vulnerable individuals and communities, and the absence of immoral cooperation or appropriation. The statement did not address the matter of those who wish to express prophetic witness for a culture of life and signal special respect for the unborn by entirely avoiding the vaccine. We would note that the CDF’s December 2020 statement speaks to this matter directly in paragraph 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. In any case, from the ethical point of view, the morality of vaccination depends not only on the duty to protect one’s own health, but also on the duty to pursue the common good. In the absence of other means to stop or even prevent the epidemic, the common good may recommend vaccination, especially to protect the weakest and most exposed. Those who, however, for reasons of conscience, refuse vaccines produced with cell lines from aborted fetuses, must do their utmost to avoid, by other prophylactic means and appropriate behavior, becoming vehicles for the transmission of the infectious agent. In particular, they must avoid any risk to the health of those who cannot be vaccinated for medical or other reasons, and who are the most vulnerable.

Signed:

Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center

Father Nicanor Pier Giorgio Austriaco, O.P., Ph.D., S.T.D., Professor of Biology and of Theology, Providence College

Maureen Condic, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Neurobiology, University of Utah

Father Kevin Flannery, S.J., D.Phil., Emeritus Professor of Philosophy, Pontifical Gregorian University

Robert P. George, J.D., D.Phil., D.C.L., D.Litt., McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University

O. Carter Snead, J.D., Professor of Law and Director of the de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture, University of Notre Dame

Christopher Tollefsen, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, University of South Carolina

Father Thomas Joseph White, O.P., D.Phil., Professor of Systematic Theology, Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas – Angelicum

Affiliations provided for identification purposes only.


COMECE: COVID-19 vaccins voor iedereen

COMECE, 23 february 2021

The Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Union (COMECE) and Caritas Europa are urging the EU institutions to ensure vaccine access for all, promoting a “widescale vaccination not only for Europe´s own safety and protection, but also for global public health as a public good”.

With the COVID-19 pandemic having already entered into its second year, COMECE and Caritas Europa praised the swift action of the EU Member States to mobilise economic resources to support the scientific community in developing COVID-19 vaccines, under the leadership of the EU institutions.

The European Union is called upon to quickly define in detail its Vaccine Strategy and to implement mass vaccinations campaigns “not only for Europe´s own safety and protection, but also for […] people living in poorer nations”.

COMECE and Caritas Europa welcome the global COVAX facility, aiming to ensure equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines also in economically weaker regions. The Catholic Church in the EU also stresses the crucial role the European Union should play in emphasizing the moral urgency to make vaccines available and affordable for all according to the principles of solidarity, social justice and inclusiveness upon which the European Union is built.

While different tools to combat the pandemic are now available, “organisational and logistical capabilities – reads the statement – must be developed to meet the demand for mass vaccination,” and the new HERA incubator mechanism should identify and eliminate bottlenecks in vaccine production and adjust output to respond to the emergence of new virus variants.

In this historic moment, the EU institutions are called to “offset the devastating impact of the crisis in terms of anxiety, emerging social inequalities, and the impoverishment of large segments of the world’s population”, as well as to “support its Member States to promote mass information and advocacy campaigns to overcome fears of vaccination and misinformation”.


Europese katholieke leiders hekelen ‘vaccinatie-nationalisme’, pleiten voor eerlijke distributie

Katholiek Nieuwsblad, 23 februari 2021
door Hannah Brockhaus

Katholieke leiders in Europa hebben er bij de Europese Unie op aangedrongen zich te laten leiden door solidariteit, broederschap en sociale rechtvaardigheid bij de distributie en toediening van de coronavaccins.

In een gezamenlijke verklaring op 23 februari stellen Caritas Europa en de Commissie van de Bisschoppenconferenties van de EU (COMECE) dat “solidariteit het doorslaggevende criterium moet zijn op dit historische moment”.

‘Vaccinatie op grote schaal promoten’

“Het is dringend noodzakelijk om snel massale vaccinatiecampagnes te voeren”, aldus de verklaring. “We dringen er bij de Europese Unie op aan om vaccinatie op grote schaal te promoten, niet alleen voor Europa’s eigen veiligheid en bescherming, maar ook voor de mondiale volksgezondheid als een publiek goed, waarvan zowel mensen in armere landen profiteren als mensen in landen met de middelen om de vaccins te produceren.”

De verklaring dingt er bij de EU-leiders op aan om de vaccinatiestrategie snel en gedetailleerd uit te werken. “Na de versnelde ontwikkeling van de vaccins, moet er meer aandacht worden besteed aan de productie en implementatie.”

Solidariteit

“We dringen er daarom bij de Europese Unie en haar lidstaten op aan om niet toe te geven aan een zorgwekkende tendens om nationale of economische belangen te laten prevaleren”, zo staat er verder te lezen, “maar om zich te laten leiden door de principes van broederschap, solidariteit, subsidiariteit, sociale rechtvaardigheid en inclusiviteit.”

“Goed Europees vaccinatiebeleid is niet alleen het ‘begin van het einde’ van de pandemie, maar ook het ‘begin van een nieuw begin’ van solidair beleid”

COMECE en Caritas Europa sluiten zich ook expliciet aan bij eerdere uitspraken van paus Franciscus, dat het coronavirusvaccin voor iedereen beschikbaar moet zijn, vooral voor de meest kwetsbaren.

‘Vaccinconcurrentie’

Ook wijzen zij op een verklaring van de directeur-generaal van de Wereldgezondheidsorganisatie Tedros Adhanom, die zei dat “prioriteit moet worden gegeven aan het vaccineren van sommige mensen in alle landen, in plaats van alle mensen in sommige landen”.

Verder bekritiseert de gezamenlijke verklaring van de katholieke organisaties “betreurenswaardige tendensen in de richting van ‘vaccinconcurrentie ‘en ‘vaccinatie-nationalisme’ in de vorm van exportverboden en andere protectionistische maatregelen om de aanvoer van vaccins weg te houden uit armere landen.”

Angst en desinformatie tegengaan

Dit dreigt “decennia van menselijke ontwikkeling” om te keren. “Zorgen voor toegang tot vaccins voor iedereen – dat ze beschikbaar en betaalbaar zijn – is een wereldwijde morele urgentie”, zo benadrukt de verklaring.

Caritas Europa en COMECE pleiten ook voor meer steun voor nauwkeurige informatiecampagnes, “om de angst voor vaccinatie en verkeerde informatie te overwinnen”.

‘Nieuw begin’

“Europa kan van zijn Covid-19-vaccinbeleid niet alleen het ‘begin van het einde’ van de pandemiecrisis maken, maar het ook zien als het ‘begin van een nieuw begin’, voor een vernieuwd beleid in dienst van het algemeen belang en solidariteit.”


Minister wijst keuzevrijheid vaccin bij gewetensbezwaar af

Rijksoverheid, 16 februari 2021

Minister Hugo de Jonge wil niet dat sommige mensen mogen kiezen welk type coronavaccin zij krijgen. Dat stelt hij in antwoorden op Kamervragen van de ChristenUnie en SGP over het gebruik van foetaal weefsel in de ontwikkelings-, productie- of testfase van coronavaccins. Het argument van de minister is dat de vaccins schaars zijn en zo veel mogelijk Nederlanders snel worden gevaccineerd. Het aanbieden van een keuze voor een bepaald type vaccin behoort dan niet tot de mogelijkheden.


Ouderdom: onze toekomst – Ouderen na de pandemie

De Pauselijke Academie voor het Leven reflecteert op ouderen na de pandemie.


De pandemie en de crises van de wereld

Address to the members of the diplomatic corps accredited to the Holy See

Pope Francis
8 February 2021

Your Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

I thank the Dean, His Excellency Mr George Poulides, Ambassador of Cyprus, for the kind words and good wishes he has expressed in your name, and I beg your pardon for any inconvenience caused by the cancellation of our meeting originally planned for 25 January last. I am grateful for your patience and understanding, and for accepting the invitation to be here this morning, despite the difficulties, for our traditional encounter.

Our meeting this morning takes place in the more spacious Hall of Blessings, in order to respect the need for greater personal distancing demanded by the pandemic. Yet this distancing is merely physical. Today’s meeting speaks of something very different: it is a sign of the closeness and mutual support to which the family of nations should aspire. In this time of pandemic, the need for such closeness is all the more important, for it is clear that the virus knows no barriers nor can it easily be isolated. Overcoming it is thus a duty incumbent on each of us, as well as our countries.

I am most grateful for your daily efforts to foster relations between the countries or international organizations that you represent and the Holy See. We have been able to exchange many signs of our closeness to one another in the course of these past months, thanks also to the deployment of new technologies that have enabled us to surmount the limitations imposed by the pandemic.

All of us certainly look forward to resuming personal contacts as quickly as possible, and our gathering here today is meant to be a sign of hope in this regard. I myself wish to resume my Apostolic Visits, beginning with that to Iraq scheduled for this coming March. These Visits are an important sign of the solicitude of the Successor of Peter for God’s People spread throughout the world and the dialogue of the Holy See with states. They also frequently provide an opportunity to promote, in a spirit of sharing and dialogue, good relations between the different religions. In our time, interreligious dialogue is an important component of the encounter between peoples and cultures. When it is viewed not in terms of compromising our own identity but as an occasion of mutual understanding and enrichment, dialogue can become an opportunity for religious leaders and the followers of different confessions, and can support the responsible efforts of political leaders to promote the common good.

Equally important are international agreements that foster mutual trust and enable the Church to cooperate more effectively in the spiritual and social well-being of your countries. In this regard, I would mention the exchange of instruments of ratification of the Framework Agreement between the Holy See and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the Agreement on the legal status of the Catholic Church in Burkina Faso, as well as the signing of the Seventh Additional Agreement of the 23 June 1960 Convention Regulating Patrimonial Relations between the Holy See and the Republic of Austria. Additionally, on 22 October 2020, the Holy See and the People’s Republic of China agreed to extend for another two years the Provisional Agreement regarding the Appointment of Bishops in China, signed in Beijing in 2018. The agreement is essentially pastoral in nature, and the Holy See is confident that the process now begun can be pursued in a spirit of mutual respect and trust, and thus further contribute to the resolution of questions of common interest.

Dear Ambassadors,

The year just ended has left in its wake fear, unease and despair, as well as grief for the great loss of life. It led to a spirit of isolation and mutual suspicion that caused states to set up barriers. The interconnected world to which we have become accustomed gave way to a world once more fragmented and divided. Yet the effects of the pandemic are themselves global, touching all the countries and peoples of the world, affecting numerous aspects of our lives, and helping to aggravate “deeply interrelated crises like those of the climate, food, the economy and migration”. In light of this, I thought it fitting to establish the Vatican Covid-19 Committee, for the sake of coordinating the response of the Holy See and the entire Church to requests coming from dioceses worldwide to respond to the health crisis and the serious needs that the pandemic has brought to the fore.

From the outset, it seemed obvious that the pandemic would have a significant effect on the style of life to which we are accustomed, and on conveniences and certainties we take for granted. This led to a crisis, for it showed us the face of a world that is seriously ill, not only as a result of the virus but also in its natural environment, its economic and political processes, and even more in its human relationships. The pandemic shed light on the risks and consequences inherent in a way of life dominated by selfishness and a culture of waste, and it set before us a choice: either to continue on the road we have followed until now, or to set out on a new path.

I would like to mention briefly some of the crises that were provoked or brought to light by the pandemic, but also to consider the opportunities that they offer for the building of a more humane, just, supportive and peaceful world.

A health crisis

The pandemic forced us to confront two unavoidable dimensions of human existence: sickness and death. In doing so, it reminded us of the value of life, of every individual human life and its dignity, at every moment of its earthly pilgrimage, from conception in the womb until its natural end. It is painful, however, to note that under the pretext of guaranteeing presumed subjective rights, a growing number of legal systems in our world seem to be moving away from their inalienable duty to protect human life at every one of its phases.

The pandemic has also reminded us of the right – the right! – of each human being to dignified care, as I emphasized in my Message for the World Day of Peace celebrated on 1 January this year. For “each human person is an end in himself or herself, and never simply a means to be valued only for his or her usefulness. Persons are created to live together in families, communities and societies, where all are equal in dignity. Human rights derive from this dignity, as do human duties, like the responsibility to welcome and assist the poor, the sick, the excluded”. If we deprive the weakest among us of the right to life, how can we effectively guarantee respect for every other right?

I thus renew my appeal that every person receive the care and assistance he or she requires. To this end, it is indispensable that political and government leaders work above all to ensure universal access to basic healthcare, the creation of local medical clinics and healthcare structures that meet people’s actual needs, and the availability of treatments and medicinal supplies. Concern for profit should not be guiding a field as sensitive as that of healthcare.

It is likewise essential that the remarkable medical and scientific progress attained over the years – which made it possible to create so quickly vaccines that promise to be effective against the Coronavirus – benefit humanity as a whole. I encourage all states to contribute actively to the international efforts being made to ensure an equitable distribution of the vaccines, based not on purely economic criteria but on the needs of all, especially of peoples most in need.

Even so, before so a devious and unpredictable an enemy as Covid-19, access to vaccines must be accompanied by responsible personal behaviour aimed at halting the spread of the virus, employing the necessary measures of prevention to which we have become accustomed in these months. It would be disastrous to put our trust in the vaccine alone, as if it were a panacea exempting every individual from constant concern for his or her own health and for the health of others. The pandemic has once more shown us that, in the celebrated expression of the English poet John Donne, “no man is an island”, and that “any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind”.

An environmental crisis

Nor it is just human beings who are ill. The pandemic has demonstrated once again that the earth itself is fragile and in need of care.

Certainly, there are profound differences between the health crisis resulting from the pandemic and the ecological crisis caused by the indiscriminate exploitation of natural resources. The latter is much more complex and enduring, and requires shared long-term solutions. The impact of climate change, for example, whether direct, such as the extreme weather events of flooding and drought, or indirect, such as malnutrition or respiratory disease, entail consequences that persist for a considerable time.

Overcoming these crises demands international cooperation in caring for our common home. It is thus my hope that the next United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26), to take place in Glasgow next November, will lead to effective agreement in addressing the consequences of climate change. Now is the time to act, for we are already feeling the effects of prolonged inaction.

I think, for example, of the repercussions of climate change on numerous small islands in the Pacific Ocean that are in danger of gradually disappearing. This tragedy not only causes the destruction of entire villages, but also forces local communities, especially families, to be constantly displaced, with the loss of their identity and culture. I think too of the floods in Southeast Asia, especially in Vietnam and the Philippines, which have caused many deaths and left entire families without means of subsistence. Nor can I fail to mention the increased warming of the earth, which has caused devastating fires in Australia and California.

In Africa too, climate change, aggravated by reckless human interventions – and now by the pandemic – is a cause of grave concern. I think particularly of food insecurity, which in the last year has especially affected Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger, with millions of people suffering from hunger. In South Sudan too, there is a risk of famine and indeed a serious and persistent humanitarian emergency: over one million children are undernourished, while humanitarian corridors are often blocked and the presence of humanitarian agencies in the territory is restricted. Not least to deal with this situation, the South Sudanese authorities urgently need to overcome misunderstandings and pursue political dialogue for the sake of full national reconciliation.

An economic and social crisis

The need to contain the coronavirus has prompted many governments to adopt restrictions on freedom of movement. For several months, these have led to the closing of businesses and a general slowdown in production, with serious repercussions on companies, especially those that are medium-sized and small, on employment and consequently on the life of families and entire sectors of society, especially those that are most fragile.

The resulting economic crisis has highlighted another illness of our time: that of an economy based on the exploitation and waste of both people and natural resources. All too often, we have neglected solidarity and other values that make it possible for the economy to serve integral human development rather than particular interests. We have also lost sight of the social significance of economic activity and the universal destination of goods and resources.

The current crisis thus provides a helpful opportunity to rethink the relationship between individuals and the economy. There is need for a kind of “new Copernican revolution” that can put the economy at the service of men and women, not vice versa. In a word, “a different kind of economy: one that brings life not death, one that is inclusive and not exclusive, humane and not dehumanizing, one that cares for the environment and does not despoil it”.

To cope with the negative consequences of this crisis, many governments have prepared various initiatives and allocated substantial funding. Yet, not infrequently, attempts have been made to seek local solutions to a problem that is in fact global. Today, more than ever, we can no longer think of acting simply by ourselves. Common and shared initiatives are also needed at the international level, especially to support employment and to protect the poorest sectors of the population. I consider to be significant in this regard the commitment of the European Union and its member states. Despite difficulties, they have been able to demonstrate that it is possible to work diligently to reach satisfactory compromises for the benefit of all citizens. The allocation of funds proposed by the Next Generation EU recovery plan can serve as a meaningful example of how cooperation and the sharing of resources in a spirit of solidarity are not only desirable but also achievable goals.

In many parts of the world, the crisis has predominantly affected those working informally, who were the first to see their livelihood vanish. Living outside of the formal economy, they lack access to social safety nets, including unemployment insurance and health care provision. Driven by desperation, many have sought other forms of income and risk being exploited through illegal or forced labour, prostitution and various criminal activities, including human trafficking.

Every human being, on the other hand, has the right to enjoy the “means necessary for the proper development of life”, and must be given the means to do so. Indeed, economic stability must be ensured for all, so as to avoid the scourge of exploitation and to combat the usury and corruption that afflict many countries in the world, together with the many other injustices that occur daily under the weary and distracted gaze of our contemporary society.

The increased amount of time spent at home has also led to greater isolation as people pass longer hours before computers and other media, with serious consequences for the more vulnerable, particularly the poor and the unemployed. They become easier prey for cybercrime in its most dehumanizing aspects, including fraud, trafficking in persons, the exploitation of prostitution, including child prostitution, and child pornography.

The closing of borders due to the pandemic, combined with the economic crisis, have also aggravated a number of humanitarian emergencies, both in conflict areas and in regions affected by climate change and drought, as well as in refugee and migrant camps. I think especially of Sudan, where thousands of people fleeing the Tigray region have sought refuge, as well as other countries in sub-Saharan Africa, or in the Cabo Delgado region in Mozambique, where many have been forced to leave their own lands and now find themselves in highly precarious conditions. My thoughts also turn to Yemen and beloved Syria, where, in addition to other serious emergencies, a large part of the population experiences food insecurity and children are suffering from malnutrition.

In various cases, humanitarian crises are aggravated by economic sanctions, which, more often than not, affect mainly the more vulnerable segments of the population rather than political leaders. While understanding the reasons for imposing sanctions, the Holy See does not view them as effective, and hopes that they will be relaxed, not least to improve the flow of humanitarian aid, especially medicines and healthcare equipment, so very necessary in this time of pandemic.

May the current situation likewise be a catalyst for forgiving, or at least reducing, the debt that burdens the poorer countries and effectively prevents their recovery and full development.

Last year also witnessed a further increase in migrants who, as a result of the closing of borders, had to resort to ever more dangerous travel routes. This massive flow also met with a growing number of illegal refusals of entry, frequently employed to prevent migrants from seeking asylum, in violation of the principle of non-refusal (non-refoulement). Many of those who did not die while crossing seas and other natural borders were intercepted and returned to holding and detention camps, where they endure torture and human rights violations.

Humanitarian corridors, implemented in the course of the last years, surely help to confront some of these problems and have saved many lives. Yet the scope of the crisis makes it all the more urgent to address at their roots the reasons that cause individuals to migrate. It also demands a common effort to support the countries of first welcome that assume the moral duty to save human lives. In this regard, we look forward to the negotiation of the European Union’s New Pact on Migration and Asylum, while noting that concrete policies and mechanisms will not work unless they are supported by the necessary political will and commitment of all parties involved, including civil society and migrants themselves.

The Holy See appreciates every effort made to assist migrants and supports the commitment of the International Organization for Migration (IOM), presently celebrating the seventieth anniversary of its foundation, in full respect for the values expressed in its Constitution and of the culture of the member states in which the Organization works. Likewise, the Holy See, as a member of the Executive Committee of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), remains faithful to the principles laid down in the Geneva Convention of 1951 on the status of refugees and in the Protocol of 1967, both of which set forth the legal definition of refugees, their rights and the legal obligation of states to protect them.

Since the aftermath of the Second World War, our world has not experienced this dramatic an increase in the number of refugees. Consequently, there is an urgent need for renewed commitment to protect them, together with internally displaced persons and the many vulnerable people forced to flee from persecution, violence, conflicts and wars. In this regard, despite the important efforts made by the United Nations in seeking solutions and concrete proposals to address in a consistent manner the issue of forced displacement, the Holy See expresses its deep concern over the situation of displaced persons in different areas of the world. I think primarily of the central region of the Sahel where, in less than two years, the number of internally displaced persons has increased twentyfold.

A crisis of politics

The critical issues that I have just mentioned highlight a much deeper crisis, which in some way lies at the root of the others, and whose dramatic force was highlighted precisely by the pandemic. I refer to the crisis of politics that has been affecting many societies for some time and whose painful effects emerged during the pandemic.

One of the hallmarks of this crisis is the increase in political conflicts and the difficulty, if not actually the inability, to seek common and shared solutions to the problems afflicting our world. This has been a growing trend, one that is becoming more and more widespread also in countries with a long tradition of democracy. Vitalizing democracies is a challenge in the present historic moment, one that directly affects all states, whether small or large, economically advanced or in the process of development. In these days, my thoughts turn particularly to the people of Myanmar, to whom I express my affection and closeness. The path to democracy undertaken in recent years was brusquely interrupted by last week’s coup d’état. This has led to the imprisonment of different political leaders, who I hope will be promptly released as a sign of encouragement for a sincere dialogue aimed at the good of the country.

For that matter, as Pope Pius XII stated in his memorable Radio Message of Christmas 1944: “To express their own views of the duties and sacrifices that are imposed on them, and not be compelled to obey without being heard – these are two rights of citizens which find in democracy, as its name implies, their expression”. Democracy is based on mutual respect, on the possibility that each person can contribute to the good of society, and on the consideration that different opinions do not threaten the power and security of states, but through honest debate mutually enrich them and enable them to find more suitable solutions to pressing problems. The democratic process calls for pursuing the path of inclusive, peaceful, constructive and respectful dialogue among all the components of civil society in every city and nation. The events that in various ways and contexts, from East to West, have marked this past year also, as I mentioned, in countries with a long democratic tradition, have made clear how inescapable is this challenge, and how we cannot avoid the moral and social duty to address it positively. The development of a democratic consciousness demands that emphasis on individual personalities be overcome and that respect for the rule of law prevail. Indeed, law is the indispensable prerequisite for the exercise of all power and must be guaranteed by the responsible governing bodies, regardless of dominant political interests.

Sad to say, the crisis of politics and of democratic values is reflected also on the international level, with repercussions on the entire multilateral system and the obvious consequence that Organizations designed to foster peace and development – on the basis of law and not on the “law of the strongest” – see their effectiveness compromised. To be sure, we cannot ignore that the multilateral system has also, in recent years, shown some limitations. The pandemic is a precious opportunity to devise and implement structural reforms so that international Organizations can rediscover their essential vocation to serve the human family by protecting individual lives and peace.

One of the signs of the crisis of politics is precisely the frequently encountered reluctance to undertake paths of reform. We must not be afraid of reforms, even if they require sacrifices and often a change in our way of thinking. Every living body constantly needs to be reformed, and the reforms taking place in the Holy See and the Roman Curia also fit into this perspective.

In any case, there are a number of encouraging signs, such as the entry into force, a few days ago, of the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the extension for another five-year period of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (“New START”) between the Russian Federation and the United States of America. As I noted in my recent Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti, “if we take into consideration the principal threats to peace and security with their many dimensions in this multipolar world of the twenty-first century… not a few doubts arise regarding the inadequacy of nuclear deterrence as an effective response to such challenges”. In fact, “a stability based on fear, when it actually increases fear and undermines relationships of trust between peoples” is not sustainable.

Efforts in the area of disarmament and the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons that, despite difficulties and reluctance, must be intensified, should also be carried out with regard to chemical and conventional weapons. Our world has too many weapons! As Saint John XXIII observed in 1963, “justice, right reason, and the recognition of human dignity cry out insistently for a cessation to the arms race. The stockpiles of armaments which have been built up in various countries must be reduced all round and simultaneously by the parties concerned”. As violence increases at every level with the proliferation of weapons, and we see around us a world torn by wars and divisions, we feel an ever greater need for peace, a peace that “is not only the absence of war, but rather a life rich in meaning, rooted in and lived through personal fulfilment and fraternal sharing with others”.

How I wish that 2021 may be the year when the conflict in Syria, begun ten years ago, can finally end! For this to happen, renewed interest is needed also on the part of the international community to address the causes of the conflict with honesty and courage and to seek solutions whereby all, regardless of ethnic and religious affiliation, can contribute as citizens to the future of the country.

My desire for peace obviously extends to the Holy Land. Mutual trust between Israelis and Palestinians must be the basis for renewed direct dialogue between the parties aimed at resolving a conflict that has gone on all too long. I urge the international community to support and facilitate such direct dialogue, without presuming to dictate solutions that would not be aimed at the good of all. Palestinians and Israelis – of this I am sure – share the desire to dwell in peace.

I also express my hope for renewed political commitment, both national and international, to fostering the stability of Lebanon, which is experiencing an internal crisis and risks losing its identity and finding itself caught up even more in regional tensions. It is most necessary that the country maintain its unique identity, not least to ensure a pluralistic, tolerant and diversified Middle East in which the Christian community can make its proper contribution and not be reduced to a minority in need of protection. Christians, with their many educational, health and charitable works, are an intrinsic part of Lebanon’s historical and social fabric, and they must be guaranteed the possibility of continuing their efforts for the good of the country, of which they were founders. A weakening of the Christian presence risks destroying internal equilibrium and the very reality of Lebanon. In this regard, the presence of Syrian and Palestinian refugees must be also addressed. Moreover, without an urgently needed process of economic recovery and reconstruction, the country risks bankruptcy, with the possible effect of a dangerous drift towards fundamentalism. It is therefore necessary for all political and religious leaders to set aside their personal interests and to commit themselves to pursuing justice and implementing real reforms for the good of their fellow citizens, acting transparently and taking responsibility for their actions.

I likewise express my hope for peace in Libya, itself also devastated by a lengthy conflict, and I trust that the recent “Libyan Political Dialogue Forum”, held in Tunisia last November under the aegis of the United Nations, will effectively permit the inauguration of the country’s long-awaited process of reconciliation.

Other areas of the world are also a cause for concern. I am referring first of all to the political and social tensions in the Central African Republic and to those affecting Latin America in general, which are rooted in profound inequalities, injustices and poverty that offend the dignity of persons. I also follow with particular attention the deterioration of relations in the Korean Peninsula, which culminated in the destruction of the inter-Korean liaison office in Kaesong, and the situation in the South Caucasus, where several conflicts continue to smoulder, some of which flared up in the past year, undermining the stability and security of the entire region.

Finally, I cannot fail to mention another serious scourge of our time: terrorism, which every year kills numerous victims among defenseless civilians throughout the world. Terrorism is an evil that has been growing since the seventies of the last century, culminating in the attacks that took place in the United States of America on 11 September 2001 that killed nearly three thousand people. Tragically, the number of terrorist attacks has intensified in the last twenty years, affecting various countries on every continent. I think of terrorist attacks above all in sub-Saharan Africa, but also in Asia and Europe. My thoughts turn to all the victims and their families, who have lost their loved ones to blind violence motivated by ideological distortions of religion. For that matter, the targets of these attacks are often precisely places of worship where believers are gathered in prayer. In this regard, I would like to stress that the protection of places of worship is a direct consequence of the defence of freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and is a duty incumbent upon the civil authorities, regardless of their political persuasion or religious affiliation.

Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

As I come to the end of these considerations, I would like to focus on one last crisis, which is perhaps the most serious of all: the crisis of human relationships, as the expression of a general anthropological crisis, dealing with the very conception of the human person and his or her transcendent dignity.

The pandemic, which forced us to endure long months of isolation and often loneliness, has brought out the need of every individual for human relationships. I think before all else of those students who were unable to attend school or university regularly. “Attempts have been made everywhere to offer a rapid response through online educational platforms. These have brought to light a marked disparity in educational and technological opportunities, but they have also made us realize that, due to the lockdown and many other already existing needs, large numbers of children and adolescents have fallen behind in the natural process of schooling”. Furthermore, the increase in distance learning has also led to a greater dependence of children and adolescents on the internet and on virtual forms of communication in general, making them all the more vulnerable and overexposed to online criminal activities.

We are witnessing a sort of “educational catastrophe” – let me repeat this: a kind of educational catastrophe – to which we must react for the sake of generations to come and for society as a whole. “Today, there is need for a renewed commitment to an education that engages society at every level”. Education is, in fact, “a natural antidote to the individualistic culture that at times degenerates into a true cult of the self and the primacy of indifference. Our future cannot be one of division, impoverishment of thought, imagination, attentiveness, dialogue and mutual understanding”.

At the same time, long periods of lockdown have also made it possible for families to spend more time together. For many of them, it was an important opportunity to renew their deepest relationships. Marriage and family “constitute one of the most precious of human values” and the foundation of every civil society. The great Pope Saint John Paul II, the centenary of whose birth we commemorated last year, noted in his insightful teachings on the family that, “nowadays, given the global dimension of various social questions, the family has seen its role in the development of society expanded in a completely new way… by presenting to their children a model of life based on the values of truth, freedom, justice and love”. Even so, not everybody has been able to live with serenity in his or her own home and some forms of cohabitation have degenerated and led to domestic violence. I encourage everyone, civil and public authorities, to provide support to the victims of domestic violence: unfortunately, as we all know, women, often with children, are those who pay the highest price.

The need to halt the spread of the virus has also had implications for a number of fundamental freedoms, including religious freedom, restricting public worship and the educational and charitable activities of faith communities. It must be recognized, however, that religion is a fundamental aspect of the human person and of society, and cannot be eliminated. Even as we seek ways to protect human lives from the spread of the virus, we cannot view the spiritual and moral dimension of the human person as less important than physical health.

Freedom of worship, furthermore, is not a corollary of the freedom of assembly. It is in essence derived from the right to freedom of religion, which is the primary and fundamental human right. This right must therefore be respected, protected and defended by civil authorities, like the right to bodily and physical health. For that matter, sound care of the body can never ignore care of the soul.

In his Letter to Cangrande della Scala, Dante Alighieri states that the purpose of his Comedy is “to remove those living in this life from the state of misery and to lead them to the state of bliss”. This is also the work of both religious and civil authorities, in their various sectors and responsibilities. The crisis in human relationships and, consequently, the other crises I have mentioned, cannot be overcome, unless we safeguard the transcendent dignity of each human person, created in the image and likeness of God.

In mentioning the great Florentine poet, the seven-hundredth anniversary of whose death occurs this year, I would also like to address a special thought to the people of Italy, who were the first in Europe to deal with the grave effects of the pandemic. I urge them not to lose heart amid the present difficulties, but to cooperate in building a society in which no one is discarded or forgotten.

Dear Ambassadors,

2021 is a time that must not be wasted. And it will not be wasted if we can work together with generosity and commitment. In this regard, I am convinced that fraternity is the true cure for the pandemic and the many evils that have affected us. Along with vaccines, fraternity and hope are, as it were, the medicine we need in today’s world.

Upon each of you and your respective countries I invoke abundant heavenly blessings, and add my prayerful good wishes that this year may be a fruitful occasion for deepening the bonds of fraternity that unite the entire human family.

Thank you!


Jaarverslag Vaticaanse COVID-19 commissie: Bereid de toekomst voor

Dicastery for promoting integral human development, februari 2021

On 20 March 2020, Pope Francis asked the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development (DPIHD) to create a Commission, in collaboration with other Dicasteries of the Roman Curia and other organizations, to express the Church’s solicitude and care for the whole human family facing the COVID-19 pandemic, including analysis, reflection on the new socio-economic-cultural future, and the proposal of relevant approaches.

Accordingly, DPIHD has established a Vatican COVID-19 Commission to take up the Pope’sconcern through the activities of five Working Groups, which are: acting now for the future; looking to the future with creativity; communicating hope; seeking common dialogue and reflections; supporting to care.

The activities of these five working groups, which were presented to the Holy Father on 27 March 2020, will be coordinated by a Directorate reporting directly to the Holy Father. It will include the DPIHD’s Prefect, Cardinal Peter Turkson; Secretary, Mons. Bruno-Marie Duffé; and Adjunct Secretary, Fr. Augusto Zampini.


Wie vertrouw je over de nieuwe coronavaccins?

Katholiek Nieuwsblad, 22 januari 2021

door dr. Anton ten Klooster, moraaltheoloog aan Tilburg University en priester van het aartsbisdom Utrecht

Binnen en buiten de Kerk heerst wantrouwen ten opzichte van de nieuwe coronavaccins. Kritische vragen stellen is terecht, maar er zijn goede (katholieke) redenen om je toch te laten vaccineren.

Het toedienen van de eerste vaccins markeert het begin van een nieuwe fase van de corona-pandemie. Velen hopen en verwachten dat het het begin van het einde van de beperkende maatregelen is. Daarvoor is een bepaalde vaccinatiegraad nodig; een dusdanig groot deel van de bevolking is gevaccineerd dat het virus zich moeilijker of zelfs helemaal niet kan verspreiden. Voor die vaccinaticgraad moeten mensen vertrouwen hebben in de werking van het vaccin en bereid zijn het te ontvangen. Deze zaken staan echter onder druk door zowel onduidelijkheid als desinformatie.

Voorop staat dat de vraag van wel of niet vaccineren iedereen persoonlijk raakt. Het is een handeling die ingrijpt in het eigen lichaam, om dit tegen ziekte te beschermen. Wie voor vaccinatie kiest, zal dus terecht willen weten of het veilig is. De werkzaamheid en veiligheid van de vaccins die nu in West-Europa toegediend worden, zijn onderzocht volgens de geldende wetenschappelijke standaarden. Toch blijven er vergezochte theorieën rondgaan over mogelijke genetische manipulatie door een vaccin en onbewezen bijwerkingen.

Wantrouwen

De bron van dit probleem is een wantrouwen naar officiële instanties, dat gevoed wordt door de onzekere omstandigheden en de snelheid waarmee het vaccin ontwikkeld is. Maar juist die snelheid is ook een hoopvol teken van wat de mensheid kan bereiken als ze zich voluit en gezamenlijk inzet voor het oplossen van problemen. Uiteindelijk rest dan de vraag: wie vertrouw je? Zelf kies ik ervoor mijn vertrouwen te stellen in ethici met medische kennis, zoals bijvoorbeeld verenigd in de Katholieke Stichting Medische Ethiek (medische-ethiek.nl). Zij betogen met kennis van zaken dat vaccinatie verantwoord, veilig en aanbevelenswaardig is. Terecht stellen we kritische vragen over zoiets belangrijks als het ontwikkelen en toedienen van een vaccin. Maar wc mogen ook kritisch zijn bij de weging van de betrouwbaarheid van beschikbare informatie.

Terecht krijgt het gebruik van cellijnen van geaborteerde menselijke foetussen in de ontwikkeling van vaccins veel aandacht. Het leergezag wijst dit gebruik af. Tegelijk heeft het consequent betoogd dat het gebruik van deze vaccins in ernstige omstandigheden te rechtvaardigen is. De Congregatie voor de Geloofsleer bevestigde kort voor Kerstmis dat we ons in zulke omstandigheden bevinden. Toch blijft een aantal katholieken, met name in de VS, betogen dat het ontvangen van zo’n vaccin moreel onaanvaardbaar is. Zij verwerpen daarmee impliciet (en soms ook expliciet) de stelling-name van het leergezag. Ook hier komt de kwestie van vertrouwen terug: paus Franciscus en bisschoppen wereldwijd – een enkele uitzondering daargelaten – houden eensgezind voor dat vaccinatie aanvaardbaar en aanbevelenswaardig is. Zo helpen zij ons bij het vormen van ons geweten. De Kerk heeft door de eeuwen heen de eensgezindheid over een leer ook gezien als een teken van de leiding van de Heilige Geest, ook hierop mogen we vertrouwen.

Het katholieke leergezag houdt eensgezind voor dat vaccinatie aanvaardbaar en aanbevelenswaardig is

Vaccinatie afwijzen lijkt een manier om jezelf te vrijwaren van vermeende risico’s, moreel of medisch. Dit gaat echter voorbij aan het sociale aspect een vaccinatieprogramma beoogt niet alleen de bescherming van het individu, maar daardoor ook het beschermen van de samenleving als geheel, in het bijzonder diegenen die het kwetsbaarst zijn voor het coronavirus. Een afgewogen gewetensbeslissing dient ook dit mee te wegen.

Het spreekt voor zich dat daarbij de belangen van de ene groep niet opgeofferd mogen worden voor die van een andere. Dat is ook niet aan de orde: vaccinatie beschermt het individu en de gemeenschap. Wie denkt zelf weinig te vrezen te hebben van een eventuele corona-infectic, doet er goed aan om uit solidariteit voor vaccinatie te kiezen. Juist vanwege de grote belangen moet de overheid zorgvuldig communiceren over de werking van vaccins, mogelijke bijwerkingen, en ingaan op de zorgen van burgers. Waar zij dit nalaat, moet zij kritisch bevraagd worden, in het bijzonder door experts. Tegelijk mogen we als gelovige mensen en betrokken burgers laten zien dat we geen individualisten zijn, maar deel willen uitmaken van een solidaire en gezonde samenleving.


Overgenomen met toestemming van Katholiek Nieuwsblad.


Kamerleden pleiten voor keuzevrijheid in coronavaccin

Katholiek Nieuwsblad, 19 januari 2021
door Selinde van Dijk-Kroesbergen

Nu de eerste coronavaccins worden toegediend, wordt de roep om zelf het coronavaccin te kiezen groter. DENK en de SGP dienden hiervoor vorige week een motie in. Ook hebben de SGP en de ChristenUnie Kamervragen gesteld.

Voor de een is het gebruik van varkensvet een bezwaar, voor de ander het gebruik van cellen die terug te voeren zijn op foetaal weefsel. Kees van der Staaij (SGP), Carla Dik-Faber (CU) en Tunahan Kuzu (DENK) willen openheid over de totstandkoming en samenstelling van de verschillende coronavaccins en keuzevrijheid voor de burgers.

Verontruste telefoontjes

Het onderwerp speelt al veel langer, maar nu de vaccinaties worden toegediend is het prominenter geworden.

“We kregen de afgelopen tijd wekelijks verontruste telefoons en mails van mensen met vragen over het gebruik van foetaal weefsel in de coronavaccins”, vertelt Ardjan Boersma die beleidsmedewerker van de SGP is en nauw betrokken was bij het opstellen van de Kamervragen.

De gebruikte cellen zijn afkomstig van een foetus uit de jaren zeventig en een geaborteerde foetus uit de jaren tachtig. Het is niet zeker of de foetus uit de jaren zeventig geaborteerd is. Hoe dan ook, het leidt bij sommige mensen tot gewetensbezwaren.

Praktisch onhaalbaar

Tijdens een debat van vorige week zijn er vragen aan minister Hugo de Jonge (Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport) gesteld. Zijn antwoord gaf niet veel hoop dat de motie die Kuzu en Van der Staaij 14 januari indienden, vandaag – 19 januari – zal worden aangenomen.

“De Jonge ziet het praktisch gezien niet voor zich dat mensen de keuze voor het type vaccin krijgen”, verklaart Boersma. “Daarom is er bij de schriftelijke Kamervragen extra de nadruk gelegd op het feit dat sommige mensen gewetensbezwaren hebben”, vervolgt hij.

Toename bereidheid

Van de ongeveer 130 verschillende vaccins die er wereldwijd ontwikkeld worden, heeft Nederland de vaccins van zes verschillende fabrikanten besteld. “Er schijnt een vaccin tussen te zitten dat wel ‘clean’ is”, zegt Boersma.

De Kamerleden hopen dat onder de specifieke groep gewetensbezwaarden de bereidheid tot vaccineren zal toenemen, wanneer zij zelf mogen kiezen welk vaccin ze nemen.

Katholieke Kerk: geen bezwaar tegen vaccins

Overigens stellen katholieke geestelijken van over de hele wereld, onder wie kardinaal Eijk, dat mensen geen bezwaar hoeven te hebben bij het coronavaccin. Er is voldoende morele afstand tussen het toedienen van het vaccin en het oorspronkelijk onrechtmatig handelen.