To vaccinate or not to vaccinate, that is the question. And the answer is: vaccinate! I had measles as a boy and was fortunate it was a mild case; it can be fatal. I received the Salk vaccine against polio. It kept me from getting a disease that had paralyzed many children and adults up to
that time.
My personal history as well as my concern for young people lead me to oppose the effort to weaken West Virginia’s strong requirement to vaccinate children attending school. That effort tilts too far in the direction of personal liberty and away from the common good. Children pay the price for adults’ decisions about their health. The simple truth is that children are more vulnerable than adults and need more protection. Proven vaccines provide that protection.
Why do some adults oppose vaccinations? Some parents sincerely believe that certain vaccines will harm their children. I ask them to consider the facts: there have been no polio or measles outbreaks in West Virginia for many decades and very few instances of other serious diseases like tetanus and diphtheria. These vaccines have prevented serious harm to children.
Other adults have moral objections because some vaccines are connected to human cell cultures developed from two aborted fetuses in the 1960s, even though new abortions are never performed for current vaccines [American Academy of Pediatrics, May 14, 2025]. I share their moral repugnance at any connection to the taking of an unborn child’s life. But we do not live in a perfect world. Weeds and wheat grow together. Trying to pull up all the weeds will also pull up a lot of wheat (see Matthew 13: 24-30). We can accept a remote link to a moral evil, which we did not cause and do not endorse, because a far greater good can be obtained despite it.
Anti-vaccination advocates want schools to accept philosophical (or simply personal) and religious exemptions from the state’s vaccination requirements for their children. Medical exemptions are already available for children who qualify for them but denying children the protection of proven vaccines because of parents’ sincere conscientious objection to them will itself pose real health risks for their children.
It is also highly problematic to allow a person to pose a religious objection to a vaccination policy that a religion adopts for the welfare of the children studying in its schools.
This would result in an individual’s conscience being allowed to override the communal conscience of the religion, whose faith has moved it to operate the school and form policies for children’s safety. Imagine parents at a Catholic school insisting that the school not conduct prayer or celebrate Mass because their child is not Catholic. Do those parents have the right to nullify the school’s policy? My Catholic Church believes that an individual’s conscience must always take into account the common good, which the Church must define and defend. A religious body has the right to organize its inner life consistent with its beliefs, without interference from the state or individuals.
I affirm the right of parents to follow their conscience as the primary educators of their children. Yet if their conscience is wrongly formed – as is the case with those who sincerely but mistakenly deny the efficacy of proven vaccines – their decision may cause injury to their own children and to the children of other parents, who want their children protected against diseases.
I join many other West Virginians, both medical personnel and ordinary citizens, in urging our civil leaders to back away from weakening a childhood vaccination regimen that has done immense good in keeping our children healthy. I will certainly not allow a weakening of that safety policy in our Catholic schools. We will follow Jesus’ example of welcoming children and blessing them (Mark 10:13-16).
Sincerely in Christ,
Mark E. Brennan
Bishop of Wheeling-Charleston
