EDWARD A.

MORSE
PROFESSOR OF LAW & MCGRATH NORTH ENDOWED CHAIR
CREIGHTON UNIVERSITY
2500 CALIFORNIA PLAZA
OMAHA, NEBRASKA 68178
MORSE@CREIGHTON.EDU
402-280-3091

June 8, 2021

(Via Email)
Father Daniel Hendrickson, S.J.
President, Creighton University

Dear Father Hendrickson:

I write to express an important concern about the vaccine mandate that is being imposed
on our students. In particular, I ask that you address the absence of any conscientious and/or
religious objections to the vaccine, which are currently missing from our policy. As discussed
below, the rejection of conscience protections stands in stark contrast to the teachings of the
Church, and even to the secular authorities in Nebraska who recognize vaccine exemptions for
conscientious and religious beliefs.

A small change here could send a very positive message about our commitment to being
a Catholic university. In contrast, I see potential significant harm from persisting in a coercive
policy that essentially expels students with sincere and legitimate moral objections in this matter.

Student Contacts.
Students and parents have contacted me about their concerns, expressing both fear and
disbelief about the coercive policy being embraced. Some attempted to express their concerns
via social media, but their concerns were suppressed on the social media platform. (Whether this
was done by Creighton or the platform is unclear.) Parents have expressed difficulty in
connecting with others who share their concerns, but they are finding ways to overcome those
barriers. Students are also beginning to connect with others in their social networks. One tells
me that she has 15-20 other Catholic students who are interested in this issue. We don’t know
the total number of students with concerns in this area, but the number may be greater than we
think. Even if the number is small, we should not dismiss their claims without due
consideration.

Based on these contacts, I have observed respect for the institution and its concerns
alongside competing concerns about their own health and wellbeing, including the threat that this
policy presents to their life goals and their pursuit of a Creighton education. But even more
important to them is their desire to follow a moral path, the path of a pilgrim. They love and
serve God and want to follow our Lord wherever that leads them. I am hearing deep convictions
and some outrage about overreaching and dissonance in the messages we profess as a university.
Some have stated they are willing to leave the university if this policy is not modified. If that
occurs, it will be a great loss for all of us and a wound for our university. As I hope you will
agree, we should avoid that outcome.

1
Prudential Concerns.
Prudential reasons support hesitation to embrace an experimental vaccine, which has not
been adequately tested and which leaves many unanswered questions about future health effects.
I am personally familiar with health professionals who will not embrace the vaccine for their
own use or recommend it to patients. Anecdotal evidence supports concern, including reported
cases about the disruption of menstrual cycles in female patients following the vaccine. We
simply do not know many things about the vaccines and the risks they present. Federal law
requires disclosure and precludes medical coercion – and with good reason.

On the other hand, we do know that the virus is treatable. Healthy young people face
low risks of serious long-term impacts. There is a risk-reward calculus here, which is similar to
other things we choose to do in life (such as driving a car, playing sports, or even mingling with
other humans). There is no safe route through this world that insulates us (and others around us)
from all risks. Nevertheless, the university has chosen to embrace an experimental vaccine for
all students – including those who may already have immunity from contracting the virus –
thereby coercing all students to accept these unknown risks.

I note that this policy affects only students, who are not only economically vulnerable
through having invested in pursuing the path toward a Creighton degree, but also legally
vulnerable in the sense they do not enjoy the protections that Federal law accords to employees,
including faculty and staff. Employer mandates to employees present significant legal risks,
which the university has judiciously chosen to avoid. (As you note in your letter to the campus
community, some 95 percent of faculty and staff are already vaccinated, making a mandate
unnecessary in that regard.) The EEOC recently issued guidance, suggesting that employers
should even carefully scrutinize incentives for vaccination to avoid legal jeopardy. But
protections for students are less robust, particularly in a private school setting. Accordingly, the
university faces a low-cost choice in imposing a mandate upon students while assuming limited
risks of legal liability.

Although you may not have intended this result, such a decision arguably reflects a
craven self-interest, rather than attentiveness to the good of all students. The university gets a
significant economic benefit from coercing the student body to be vaccinated, as it reduces risks
associated with lockdowns and the loss of important experiences that add value to a Creighton
education. But there are potential costs imposed on those students, including individuals who
may have adverse reactions or long-term health consequences from an experimental vaccine. I
doubt that the university is willing to internalize those costs by agreeing to indemnify students.
Instead, it seems to be exploiting legal vulnerability in order to add security to its position in the
marketplace.

It is unbecoming to an institution that professes cura personalis to employ a coercive

policy without regard for the good of each individual student. Administrators who bear no risks
from imposing the vaccines, but who stand to reap the rewards from coercion, are not in the right
position to be making those judgments. These matters should instead be left for students and
their parents, guided by healthcare professionals and others who have their interests in mind.

2
Religious/Conscience Concerns.
The coercive policy offends another even more significant interest: conscientious and
religious concerns about the origins of these vaccines. You have undoubtedly studied the
various pronouncements by authorities within the Church, which ultimately conclude that it is
morally licit to take the vaccines despite clear moral condemnation of research methods in
deriving and/or testing them. These pronouncements conclude that the use of tissues from
aborted children are sufficiently remote from use, thereby avoiding the matter of formal
cooperation with evil, which cannot be allowed. However, they also are quite clear in respecting
the conscientious decisions of individuals, effectively allowing individual Catholics to embrace a
higher standard by refusing to take the vaccine. In other words, there is no moral responsibility
to become vaccinated, and good reasons exist to pursue a moral path that does not embrace the
vaccine.

Father Kevin Flannery, S.J., who held our Waite Chair this past year, delivered a lecture
on the subject in April. I attach separately for you the text of his paper, “Avoiding Illicit
Involvement With Evil”. Father Flannery agrees that persons may take the vaccines without
formally cooperating with evil, but he is also quite clear that vaccine participation should be
voluntary, not coerced. He also recognizes strong religious reasons exist to resist using the
vaccines.

One such reason involves the avoidance of scandal associated with their use. Consider
the effects of the current policies, which allow Catholics to use vaccines tainted by morally illicit
research involving the tissue of aborted children. The Church clearly rejects this research as
immoral, but that designation causes no financial penalty for engaging in illicit practices. As
long as the Church permits vaccinations despite the moral taint of the underlying research, there
is no reduction of the market demand for the vaccines – and no reduction in the profits from
pursuing those illicit means. At best, only a few of the faithful will likely go the extra mile and
forego the vaccine – not enough to make a difference where it counts, in the pocketbook.

As you may have noticed, research with human body parts from aborted children has
developed newfound support under the Biden Administration. The unethical combination of
human and animal tissues is now so common that the term “chimera” has been invented to
describe these hybrid combinations. We are facing horrific possibilities. The emerging secular
moral framework seems inadequate to prevent further incursions into the realm of the dignity and
sanctity of life. We need more persons with a moral framework infused with respect for life –
and the courage to act upon their beliefs. But Creighton’s policy will ensure that at least some of
those persons will likely be excluded from our campus community, effectively expelled and
ostracized for their beliefs. Somehow, I think they will still prevail because their cause is just.
But shouldn’t our university be supporting them, rather than hindering their efforts?

Father Flannery also identifies another serious reason to avoid the vaccines – the need to
respect the dead. In his paper, he notes: “But if respect might reasonably be shown to a
possession of a beloved deceased, respect might reasonably be shown also to the cells derived
from the cells of a fetus whom we know to be the ultimate source of cells currently being used in
order to produce or test vaccines.” (See page 9, attached). While he tends to find the benefits
outweighing the harms and seems to agree with the conclusion that vaccines ought to be

3
recommended, he also recognizes that “some faithful Catholics … might object to using the
vaccines and that these decisions in conscience must be respected….” (See page 10, attached).
This protection of conscience accords with the teaching of the Church on such matters, as you
are well aware.

Ironically, the secular authorities in the State of Nebraska also agree that conscience
protections are important – even more important than universal vaccination. State law grants an
exemption from all vaccine requirements not only for health, but also if “that immunization
conflicts with the personal and sincerely followed religious beliefs of the student.” Neb. Rev.
Stat. § 79-221(2). Thus, a student at a public school in Nebraska has greater protection from the
secular authorities of the state than a student who chooses to place himself under the authority of
the Catholic administration of Creighton University. Indeed, the Creighton Student handbook
states unequivocally: “Exemptions to the University immunization requirements are considered
for students who have a documented medical contraindication to receiving immunizations.
Religious exemptions are not accepted.” (Page 77, emphasis supplied).

The Student Handbook sends a strong message indeed: you are not welcome if your
beliefs differ from those of the administration. That is a far cry from the mantra of equity and
inclusion, which we bandy about so handily.

This is a remarkable deficiency for a Catholic university that professes to uphold the
dignity of the person and to support the spiritual and moral wellbeing of its students. It is
scandalous that we would turn a blind eye to the conscientiously held beliefs of our students in
this area. While I have not done a comprehensive comparison of other Jesuit universities, I note
that Marquette just announced an exemption along with its vaccine policy.
https://today.marquette.edu/2021/06/covid-19-update-student-vaccination-requirement/ Also,
news coverage of mandatory vaccine policies states that “almost all” institutions have religious
exemptions. https://universitybusiness.com/state-by-state-look-at-colleges-requiring-vaccines/
(May 27, 2021). Query, why would we want to be among the exceptions?

As noted above, the persons with whom I have spoken about vaccine concerns may be
small in number, but they are persons with great faith, integrity, and conviction. Some have told
me they are willing to leave the university over this issue. This is not a cost-free act on their
part. Some of them have already completed significant portions of their education. Leaving
Creighton means leaving behind friends and faculty mentors for what may well be a less rigorous
educational environment. But their faith means that much to them.

I admire their conviction and willingness to sacrifice. I also believe these individuals will
become highly impactful and influential alumni. I want them to stay in the Creighton family, to
see their positive influence among the other lives they will touch as they bring a faith-filled,
courageous, and respectful attitude into the world around them. Moreover, consider the impact
on student morale in our community when others learn that these students had to leave the
university for choosing to follow their consciences. That does not reflect well on our Catholic
identity.

***

4
 I recognize that you are trying to balance many competing interests. I offer these
comments in a spirit of good will and respect, with the sincere hope that they may prove helpful
in allowing you to see this issue in a different light. Of course, I will welcome further dialogue.

Sincerely,

Ed

Edward A. Morse