Stop London (Ontario) Catholic Diocese Vaccine Mandate

The Issue

The Catholic Diocese of London has implemented a vaccine mandate on their clergy, staff, and volunteers. Below is an open letter that was sent to the Diocese in response to the mandate. Please help by signing the petition. If you'd like to be a public signatory of the open letter, please email me at cmkowal2@gmail.com

Open Letter

Dear Most Reverend Bishop Ronald Fabbro and Auxiliary Bishop Jozef Dabrowski,

I am writing this open letter to you today out of grave concern and, what I truly believe to be, righteous anger. I have been informed of the Diocese of London’s new policy regarding mandated vaccination of clergy and non-clerical staff, many of which do not work in a ‘high-risk’ environment. This letter is not meant to admonish the diocese, but rather, it is meant as a genuine attempt at getting closer to the truth and ensuring that if a policy such as this, with far-reaching consequences for individuals and the Church, is instated, it must have the intended effect of protecting others, promoting the common good, and being consistent with the teachings of Christ and His Church – our Church. For if a policy, which puts many jobs at risks and threatens the livelihood of individuals that have chosen to serve God by serving the diocese (one does not seek employment in the diocese for the sake of self-promotion and wealth, but rather to serve the Lord) were to not meet both utilitarian and Christian goals, then it surely should not be implemented. It is my humble but strongly-held belief, informed by data, scientific evidence, and my understanding of scripture, that this policy, which mandates an invasive (as described in the policy) medical procedure, cannot meet its utilitarian goals, nor is it consistent with our faith. I ask that you consider the arguments in this letter and rescind, or at least, revise this policy.

In the document that announced the virus, it is stated that “while it is not proven that the vaccines will completely stop the virus or prevent a person from getting it, nevertheless, the current vaccines have been found to stop the worst effects of the virus”. This is followed by: “One way to ensure the efficacy of the vaccines is to have the greatest number of people vaccinated so that variants may not continue to appear and spread”. Although the former statement is correct – the vaccine does not prevent infection, but has shown to be effective (at least in the short-term) in terms of preventing serious outcomes (i.e., hospitalization or death). The latter statement however is, in my view, untrue. Firstly and most importantly, the scientific literature investigating vaccine efficacy against the spread of the Delta variant strongly suggests that though the vaccine may reduce the risk of infection in the near term (and progressively less protection over time; i.e., waning immunity[i]), it has little to no effect in preventing spread once infected. For example, CDC research has indicated that vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals spread the virus at similar rates and have similar viral loads[ii] [iii]. More recently, a study by Harvard Public Health researchers found that across 68 countries and 2947 counties, there was no substantial correlation between regional vaccination rates and cases (Note: case rates are best understood as a metric of spread of infection, but they are not an indicator of serious disease, which vaccines have been shown to reduce, at least in the short-term)[iv]. In fact, the correlation that was found was a small positive correlation. In other words, higher vaccination rates were not associated with less cases (i.e., spread), but rather weakly associated with more cases (i.e., spread). The researchers’ concluding statement (completely unedited) was as follows:

“In summary, even as efforts should be made to encourage populations to get vaccinated it should be done with humility and respect. Stigmatizing populations can do more harm than good. Importantly, other than non-pharmacological prevention efforts (e.g., the importance of basic public health hygiene with regard to maintaining safe distance or handwashing, promoting better frequent and cheaper forms of testing) needs to be renewed in order to strike the balance of learning to live with COVID-19 in the same manner we continue to live a 100 years later with various seasonal alterations of the 1918 influenza virus.“

Secondly, even if the vaccines provided comprehensive protection against infection and/or spread (which the bulk of evidence strongly disputes), the idea of completely eradicating the virus is highly unlikely. One major reason for this is that the virus can and has spread to animals (including mink, cats, dogs, etc.)[v] [vi]. So even if the hypothetical goal of 100% vaccination in the world is achieved (under the hypothetical and unrealistic condition that the vaccines prevented spread), animals will act as reservoirs for the virus and will allow the virus to mutate further. Based on the extant evidence, vaccination should not be considered an effective strategy to protect others, but rather should be considered as self-protective. Moreover, vaccination mandates clearly do not accomplish their intended utilitarian goal of reducing spread and thus, should not be implemented by the Diocese.

Further, it is my belief that a vaccine mandate is not consistent with the teachings of the Church. The document accompanying the policy cites Pope Francis’s statement encouraging vaccination as an act of love. However, in a letter to the Corinthians, St. Paul has stated “Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.”[vii]Hence, even if one accepts the premise that vaccination is an act of love, mandating vaccination surely is not. Further, a Vatican document by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, entitled “Note on the morality of using some anti-Covid-19 vaccines[viii]” explicitly states that vaccination “is not, as a rule, a moral obligation” and therefore “it must be voluntary”. In other words, vaccination must not be coerced by any means, including by threat of professional reprisals, termination, or otherwise. Further, from a practical standpoint, dismissal of an employee would, de facto, eliminate an unvaccinated employee from the work-force (as most workplaces now require vaccination) and put the individual at serious risk of poverty and not being able to feed one’s family (it should also be noted here that government officials are warning terminated unvaccinated individuals that they will not be eligible for the employment insurance that they are legally entitled to[ix]). Therefore, not only is this a strong and immoral form of coercion, it is also inconsistent with the documents of our Church. It should also be noted that, many philosophers of the church have spoken the merits righteous suffering and sacrifice[x], but this must not be confused with mandating or coercing others to suffer or sacrifice; this too must be voluntary. Further, the policy that is being implemented offers the ability for medical exemptions, but this condition is, unfortunately, usually a false option. The CPSO, under threat of reprisal, has limited the ability of doctors to provide exemptions, unless they fall into two very narrow categories (i.e., when a patient is allergic to the vaccines or when a patient has an adverse reaction to the first dose). These categories do not take into account all risk-factors of the vaccine, nor the risk-benefit ratio of vaccination. In the same vein, though vaccination is described as “safe and effective”, serious risks of blood clots[xi] and heart problems[xii] are well-known, especially for young individuals who are virtually invulnerable to covid. In addition to the known adverse reactions to the vaccine, there are also many unknowns; because of the novelty of the vaccine, there is no long-term longitudinal data which would be necessary to demonstrate the long-term safety profile of the vaccine. For these reasons, this mandate thrusts Diocese employees at the mercy of an untenable job market, government theft (EI is an entitlement that is paid into and withholding it from an entitled citizen is theft), poverty, family struggles, or they face the known and unknown risks of the vaccine, regardless of increased risk of adverse reaction (as doctors are limited to overly stringent criteria for exemptions) or low personal risk of disease.

Historically and now, Catholic institutions have been heroic in their efforts of being a sanctuary for those that are oppressed or less fortunate. This has been the case during WWII, when convents hid and sheltered Jewish children from being captured by German invaders[xiii] and now with sisters who risk their lives working against human trafficking[xiv]. These heroic actions are no coincidence. Scripture is unequivocal in matters of rejecting and rebuking oppression and protecting others[xv] [xvi] [xvii] [xviii]. Christ did not reject sinners, prostitutes, the ritually unclean, or lepers[xix], but embraced them; He did not sentence these flawed people to poverty or to the mercy of their oppressors (if he had, we would surely all be convicted and sentenced). The mandate, in effect, would be inconsistent with the teachings of Christ, as rather than sheltering the employees, which have faithfully served the Church, it would sentence the employees to face the oppression and risks that I have previously outlined. In the tradition of Kempis[xx], we, the Church (including congregation, clergy, and hierarchy) are called to imitate Christ. This includes rejecting oppression and protecting others from said oppression. It is my opinion, that the enacted policy is an abdication of this duty, for the reasons I have noted extensively in this letter.

Despite the lack of evidence supporting the efficacy of vaccine mandates and their clear invasive and oppressive nature, they have become a modern trend in today’s society. A trend that is not based on empirical data and that ignores the indisputable superiority of natural immunity (from previous infection) over vaccine immunity[xxi] (note: the presence of natural antibodies can be tested[xxii]). We can only theorize on why these erroneous modern trends are happening (may the reasons be greed, hubris, incompetence, deception, or a combination of these factors). Regardless, The Church should resist the temptation to participate in this oppressive modern culture; not simply to comply or to be a passive bystander. If we are called to truly imitate Christ, we must not be mild. Jesus was not a mild person- he practiced extreme forgiveness, extreme love, extreme compassion, but also extreme righteous anger[xxiii], and an extreme neglect of unjust and arbitrary customs, trends, and rules[xxiv] [xxv]. At the same time, we admire the saints that followed this example and were extreme in their mission, including The Great St. John Paul II in his fight against tyranny and for personal freedoms (or his heroics during WWII, the legal consequences of which could have been execution by the Germans[xxvi]), Blessed Jerzy Popieluszko for speaking truth against a tyrannical regime (who was brutally murdered for his boldness[xxvii], Fr. Walter Ciszek who valiantly continued his mission in the Soviet Union (including in prisons and gulags), despite continued threat of reprisal by the regime[xxviii], or St. Maksymilian Kolbe who voluntarily accepted suffering and execution in the face of oppression, to save a younger man who was a father, in Auschwitz.[xxix] We admire those that are bold against oppression. Therefore, I ask that we as a Church (including hierarchy, clergy, and congregation) strive to be bold in the search of truth, compassion, and in the resistance of the modern push for discrimination and oppression. For the reasons I have laid out in this letter, in my humble opinion, the enacted policy does not serve the interests of health and safety and is inconsistent with the teachings of The Church and therefore should be stricken down. If these arguments are not found to be compelling, at the very least, I ask that you revise the policy to consider natural immunity as a sufficient alternative to vaccination, as well as allowing for testing for those that do not wish to be vaccinated, regardless of their rationale.

Please accept this open letter as a sincere effort on my part to follow Christ’s example and do right by Him and not as a letter of admonishment.

Yours in Christ,

Christopher Kowalski

Public Signatories

Artur Kapron

Alicja Kowalska

Marian Kowalski

Rose Krawczak

Taunia Phillips

Luis Sardinha

Michal Jurczyk

John Waligorski

Victoria Sozanska

Joanna Rossa

Martin Wolak

Aline deViller

Joseph deViller

Jan Wilczynski

Malgorzata Bledowska

Ron McKenzie

Evelyn Price

Sheri Vlodarchyk

Carol Vlodarchyck

Christine Chenard

Jeney Valido

Pedro Rego

Catherine Cabral-McKeand

Sandra Quijano

Anne Marie Authier

Joanne Couto

Tony Couto

Fr. Bernard John Pinsonneault CSB

Mikulas Pavlovsky

Celina Senisterra

Dr. Aleksandra Gieralt

Christopher KowalskiPetition Starter

Media inquiries

1,896