“In view of the gravity of the current pandemic and the lack of availability of alternative vaccines, the reasons to accept the new COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna are sufficiently serious to justify their use, despite their remote connection to morally compromised cell lines.
“Receiving one of the COVID-19 vaccines ought to be understood as an act of charity toward the other members of our community. In this way, being vaccinated safely against COVID-19 should be considered an act of love of our neighbor and part of our moral responsibility for the common good.”
With regard to the AstraZeneca vaccine, the bishops found it to be “more morally compromised” and consequently concluded that this vaccine “should be avoided” if there are alternatives available. “It may turn out, however, that one does not really have a choice of vaccine, at least, not without a lengthy delay in immunization that may have serious consequences for one’s health and the health of others,” the bishop chairmen stated. “In such a case … it would be permissible to accept the AstraZeneca vaccine.”
Ned Hamson's Second Line View of the News 
The statement leads one to question whether the bishops believe what they profess and on its face justifies “morality by convenience.” Of course, I believe that everyone who can should get the vaccine, with the corollary that the bishops should simply crawl back under a rock and stay there. (No one is talking about the fact that some people with known food and drug allergies are ineligible for the vaccine. That’s a real problem.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Totally agree with your thoughts. I shared in the hopes that those who might not get shots due the beliefs he talks abot would accept this as permission to get the shot. Everyone who gets a shot makes the community and me safer.
LikeLike