Notre Dame’s Student COVID Vaccination Mandate


.@NotreDame's COVID mandate requiring students to be vaccinated with an emergency vaccine while continuing to allow faculty and staff to choose for themselves raises serious ethical questions #GoCatholicND Click To Tweet

The university is requiring all students, except those exempted for “documented” religious or medical reasons, to be vaccinated against COVID-19 as a condition for attendance in the fall, while faculty, staff, and campus service employees remain free to choose for themselves.

This requirement raises issues relating to Notre Dame’s Catholic identity because of the vaccines’ link to abortion and the Church’s instruction that ordinarily the taking of these vaccines “must be voluntary.” It is telling that a respected bishop (and adjunct Notre Dame law professor) has declared that Notre Dame’s policy, if strictly applied, would be “immoral.“

There have also been legal objections to student mandates. Florida has just banned them, and, as we have discovered but the university will not acknowledge, a law firm contacted by Notre Dame students has pressed those objections upon Father Jenkins. While we take no position on the legal issues, we provide the letter because it relates many of the facts pertinent to the ethical questions. 

Here are the details:

The Mandatory Vaccination Policy

In an April 7 letter to students, Father Jenkins announced that, because “a high rate of vaccination is critical in the local, national and global fight against COVID-19,” 

Notre Dame will require all students…to be fully vaccinated as a condition of enrollment for the 2021–22 academic year. We will, of course, accommodate documented medical and religious exemptions.

Similar policies have been adopted by about 220 colleges and universities, including 17 Catholic schools. These numbers, while meaningful, are quite small compared to the several thousand colleges and universities in the country and the 221 that are Catholic

As the split indicates, opinion is divided. For example, the American College Health Association “recommends COVID-19 vaccination requirements for all on-campus college and university students,” whereas the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons warns:

Although, at first glance, the policy may seem prudent, it coerces students into bearing unneeded and unknown risk and is at heart contrary to the bedrock medical principle of informed consent. 

Church Teaching

Both the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) and the USCCB have issued statements about the COVID-19 vaccines. The USCCB statements (U.S. Bishop Chairmen for Doctrine and for Pro-Life Address the Use of the Johnson & Johnson Covid-19 Vaccine and Moral Considerations Regarding the New COVID-19 Vaccines) were authored by Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades (Notre Dame’s bishop) and Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann, the chairmen of the committees on doctrine and pro-life activities, respectively.

They addressed the moral issue raised by the link between the vaccines and abortion. An embryonic stem cell line derived from an abortion was used in the testing of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines and also in the production of the Johnson & Johnson and Astra Zeneca vaccines. 

Both the CDF and the bishops concluded that the connection of the vaccines to abortion was sufficiently remote for Catholics to take them in good conscience. 

However, both the CDF and the bishops held that ordinarily the vaccination should not be compulsory. The CDF put it this way: 

[P]ractical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary.

The Religious Conscience Exemption

Because we cannot tell at this point how the University will apply the religious exemption, we simply note our hope that it will be granted to any student who declines vaccination because of the connection of the vaccines to abortion. Both the CDF and the bishops contemplate such objections “for reasons of conscience.”

The Broader Objection

The broader objection to this sort of the mandate is that there is insufficient warrant to compel anyone to take a vaccine that has not yet been approved by the FDA and has only Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). 

The concern is that, while there has been sufficient testing for to show that benefits outweigh known risks, it has not been enough for FDA approval, and consequently unknown serious side effects in addition to those already known cannot be ruled out. 

In these circumstances, unsurprisingly, a great deal has been written about both the known and the possible medical hazards of the vaccines. See, e.g., “The Leprechaun has no clothes” and Frontline Doctors.

While the government authorities have pushed back, polls show that a significant number of people remain unconvinced. 

The question, then, is whether the anticipated benefit of requiring all students to be vaccinated (save those excepted for religious or medical reasons) justifies exposing concerned students to the possible health risks of the vaccines. 

The Most Rev. Thomas Paprocki, bishop of Springfield, Illinois, and adjunct professor at the Notre Dame Law School, and Professor Gerard Bradley of the Law School have stated the case against the vaccine mandate in an illuminating letter to the Notre Dame Observer, which we reprint in the Appendix below with the permission of The Observer. 

Here us a summary of the letter, which we hope will lead you to read it in full: 

  • The vaccines have not been approved and are still experimental. Accordingly, the CDF declaration that vaccination, “as a rule…must be voluntary” applies with special force. “Participants in a medical experiment should be volunteers, even in a public health crisis.”
  • “[S]everal thousand Notre Dame students have already tested positive for the coronavirus. They are naturally immune to the disease and have no need for the vaccine.”
  • “[C]ollege age students…rarely experience severe symptoms.” “The Notre Dame Dashboard . . . reports no hospitalizations so far for COVID-19 pneumonia.”
  • “Many Notre Dame students will thus reasonably judge that they risk more from the vaccine than they do from the coronavirus…. In fact, for a…typical Notre Dame student, the chance of a severe reaction to the vaccine is several times higher than the chance of having one after contracting COVID.”
  • Permitting students to choose “would not be unfair to others in the campus community.” The unvaccinated would understand the risk they assume, and they would “pose no appreciable risk to those who do choose to get vaccinated.” Whatever risk there might be “should be regarded as negligible (certainly against the background of risks imposed and accepted…in sports, driving and other ordinary incidents of campus life.)”
  • The goal of achieving “herd immunity…would not be imperiled by making student vaccinations truly voluntary.” [Over 90%of students are already vaccinated, and the university recently reported the “incredibly good news” of a “significant decline in case numbers…down to a 7-day average of 1.4 cases/day and a 7-day positivity rate hovering around 0.1%.”]

We leave to the Appendix the authors’ discussion of the religious and medical exemptions, which they urge be interpreted to cover any objection on grounds of conscience or unwillingness to risk adverse effects. 

They conclude: 

[A]ny undertaking to exclude from campus every student who declines to be vaccinated — especially but not only those who already possess a natural immunity — would be immoral.

Legal Questions

Lawyers differ on the legality of vaccine mandates, while state legislatures consider regulation and Florida has just banned mandates in schools and elsewhere because of the “experimental” nature of the vaccines.

We take no position on the legal issues, but because of the inquiries we have received and because the legal objections turn in part upon the same considerations as do the ethical objections, we asked Father Jenkins if, as we had heard, he had received a law firm letter challenging Notre Dame’s policy. 

He did not respond. 

No matter. The law firm has given us a copy of the letter, and we reprint it in Appendix B hereto.

The letter opens with the representation that “[n]umerous [Notre Dame] students…have reached out regarding Notre Dame’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate,” and continues with a detailed description of the medical uncertainties associated with Emergency Use Authorization and the other facts they maintain support the conclusion that:

Notre Dame cannot lawfully require students to receive a COVID-19 vaccine that is being distributed under an EUA.


The university has worked diligently through this difficult period to provide students as close to a normal educational experience as possible, and, so far as we are concerned, it is entitled to considerable deference in these matters. 

Still, the Paprocki/Bradley letter raises hard questions to which there are no easy answers. And the judgment of a respected bishop (and Notre Dame Law School adjunct professor), joined by one of he law school’s ablest professors, that the Notre Dame policy is “immoral” is telling.

Nor is there a credible counter from the university. As we have noted, in announcing the mandate, Father Jenkins simply referred to the need to tamp down the virus across the nation and in the world, passing the inconvenient fact that none of the authorities in the “local, national, and global” effort have mandated vaccination. 

And the university’s citing of its several vaccination requirements for deadly diseases like smallpox are beside the point, since they relate to approved vaccines. 

Nor does the university explain why, if there is a compelling need to vaccinate all students, including those with natural immunity from prior infection and those living off campus, there is no need to vaccinate all faculty, staff, and support and service personnel who people the campus daily.

Perhaps circumstances will change by fall so materially that the university will lift or substantially modify the mandate. Oremus!

Appendix A

COVID vaccines at Notre Dame

Letter to the Editor | Tuesday, April 27, 2021

Appendix B

Click to Open

36 Responses to “Notre Dame’s Student COVID Vaccination Mandate”

  1. The question is, did the manufacturers of the vaccine know that targeting the furin receptor on the spike protein, had the potential to cause toxicity in certain susceptible individuals by the deregulation of hepcidin leading to iron deregulation?

    “The secreted peptide hormone hepcidin regulates systemic and local iron homeostasis through degradation of the iron exporter ferroportin. Dysregulation of hepcidin leads to altered iron homeostasis and development of pathological disorders including hemochromatosis, and iron loading and iron restrictive anemias.”


    If this is true, the drug companies can be held accountable for harm.

    Both Covid 19 by deregulating hepcidin and thus iron and the vaccine, by targeting the furin receptor on the spike protein and thus deregulating hepcidin and thus iron, both have the potential to cause harm in certain susceptible individuals.

  3. That should read look up post

    Anticipating Vaccine Mandate Ten Years Ago PRAWFS BLAWG and then read comments

  4. Most likely the virus is the result of the addition of a furin receptor to the spike protein of Cov 1 creating Covid 19, resulting in an increase in hepcidin, and the deregulation of iron homeostasis for certain susceptible persons, whose hepcidin levels are already elevated to begin with, and resulting in hypoxia.

    “Restoring the proper balance of furin, which regulates hepcidin, and thus iron, in these susceptible individuals will be key because the proper balance of iron is necessary for both health and fighting disease.” see

  5. Something to think about when fighting the aftermath of Covid 19:

  6. I apologize, that should read-
    “As a conclusion, we would like to point that although at first sight these viruses do not resemble each other, the molecular mechanisms used are common: the increased of pro-inflammatory cytokine synthesis, the modifications in intestinal microbiota, the NETs formation. Basic science has been trying to understand these mechanisms for years and the greater the knowledge, the lesser the damage to the population in this pandemic and in the future.”

    And I would add that these molecular mechanisms appear to all be related to a disruption in iron homeostasis:

    1. the increased of pro-inflammatory cytokine synthesis:Anemia of Inflammation: A Review
    2. the modifications in intestinal microbiota:
    “Gut Microbiota and Iron: The Crucial Actors in Health and Disease”
    3. the NETs formation.
    “Iron-chelating agent desferrioxamine stimulates formation of neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) in human blood-derived neutrophils”

    God Bless!


    “As a conclusion, we would like to point that although at first sight these viruses do not resemble each other, the molecular mechanisms used are common: the increased of pro-inflammatory cytokine synthesis, the modifications in intestinal microbiota, the NETs formation. Basic science has been trying to understand these mechanisms for years and the greater the knowledge, the lesser the damage to the population in this pandemic and in the future.”

    And I would add that these molecular mechanisms appear to be all are related to a disruption in iron homeostasis.

    1. the increased of pro-inflammatory cytokine synthesis:Anemia of Inflammation: A Review

    2. the modifications in intestinal microbiota:
    “Gut Microbiota and Iron: The Crucial Actors in Health and Disease”

    3. the NETs formation.
    “Iron-chelating agent desferrioxamine stimulates formation of neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) in human blood-derived neutrophils”

  8. First do no harm.”

    I am surprised that no one mentioned, in regards to the mandatory vaccine, the efficacy of the medicine which does not give one immunity or stop one from spreading the disease that is called Covid 19.

    Furin regulates hepcidin, which regulates iron, thus both the virus that has the potential to deregulate hepcidin, and the vaccine, which by targeting the spike protein with its addition of a furin receptor, has the potential to deregulate furin, in certain susceptible persons in the short term, and others, in the long term, can result in iron deregulation and enhance disease.

    The claim is that the vaccine will lessen the severity of the virus but where is the data to suggest that those who are not susceptible to having a severe reaction to Covid 19 to begin with, should be mandated to take this vaccine that does not provide immunity nor stop one from spreading the disease?

    Why would it be incorrect to state that this is not a virus of the vaccinated or the unvaccinated, but rather a virus, depending on one’s iron status and hepcidin levels, of iron deregulation in certain susceptible persons, especially targeting the elderly, the immune compromised, and those with diabetes 2 and other autoimmune diseases?

  9. Steven Martinek (We were ND!" June 14, 2021 at 2:30 pm

    Reply to Mike B. Personally and professionally I find the line of argument you advance, against mandatory inoculation, cogent and compelling. In stark contrast, I find no argument in favor of mandatory shots (in response to the covid plandemic) to be at all persuasive or defensible, legally, ethically, or morally. Is it hyperbole for one to extrapolate that next the Jenkins administration may mandate anabuse, or salt-peter, or chastity belts, or prohibit porn or electronic devices on which porn can be accessed? Once they cross the line of respect for free will and judgment and instincts on the part of the students (and families) where will they stop?

  10. To the attorneys in our midst (I am not one), what do you think of this legal argument against mandatory vaccination? Might it be effective for non vaccine minded student to employ against ND Administration? Please share as you wish. Text:

    April 26, 2021
    This serves as notice that the requirement for any individual to be vaccinated against COVID-19 for employment or participation at a university or other institution violates federal law. All COVID-19 vaccines are merely authorized, not approved or licensed, by the federal government; they are Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) only. They merely “may be effective.” Federal law states:
    Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I-III) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act states:
    individuals to whom the product is administered are informed—
    (I) that the Secretary has authorized the emergency use of the product;
    (II) of the significant known and potential benefits and risks of such use, and of the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown; and
    (III) of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.
    EUA products are by definition experimental and thus require the right to refuse. Under the Nuremberg Code, the foundation of ethical medicine, no one may be coerced to participate in a medical experiment. Consent of the individual is “absolutely essential.” A federal court held that the U.S. military could not mandate EUA vaccines to soldiers. Doe #1 v. Rumsfeld, 297 F.Supp.2d 119 (2003). The court held: “…the United States cannot demand that members of the armed forces also serve as guinea pigs for experimental drugs.” Id. at 135. No court has ever upheld a mandate for an EUA vaccine.
    The liability for forced participation in a medical experiment, including injury or death, may be incalculable. Medical and religious exemptions will be insufficient to overcome the illegality of EUA vaccine mandates. Children’s Health Defense urges U.S. employers, universities and other institutions to respect and uphold the rights of individuals to refuse EUA COVID-19 vaccines.


  11. Dear Greg Doyle,

    The article, “The CDC is in Bed with Big Pharma”, states that the CDC receives millions from pharmaceutical companies through its foundation. The article states that the CDC does not deny this, saying that it works through “partnerships” with this industry. To me, this appears to be a conflict of interest.

    The CDC has stated that the vaccines are “safe and effective”. How can they possibly state this when no long term testing has been done, and their own website lists over 4,434 deaths after vaccination reported through their VAERS reporting system? The CDC states that “no causal link” to the deaths has been found. Seriously? To date, over 4,434 physicians reported the deaths believing they were related to vaccination, and not one physician was correct? That strains credulity.

    Tucker Carlson on Fox News has also raised this question in the last few days. With so many reports of death, why no outside investigation? This does not even begin to address the thousands of other types of vaccines injuries that have occurred: allergic reactions, Bell’s Palsy, blood clots, heart attack, stroke, severe rashes, etc. Also please note that AT BEST the VAERS reporting system is estimated to only report 20% of adverse events. Some estimate this figure is closer to only 2%.

    I am afraid your opinion has been shaped by a severe lack of information relating to mainstream media’s shocking failure to report on this. Interestingly, mainstream media receives the majority of its funding from advertising from pharmaceutical companies. Does the media have the public’s welfare or the pharmaceutical companies’ welfare at heart?

    Finally, these drugs only have emergency use authorization, not full approval by the FDA. This is because long term testing has yet to be done. Nobody knows what long term effects of these vaccinations will be.

    All of these facts reinforce the point that informed consent is lacking regarding vaccinations, and serious questions should be raised. I have been intently following this story for months, spending literally hours each day doing research, and instead of my questions being answered, they continue to grow and become more alarming each day.

    Added to all of this is the second mystery: why is information on the drug Ivermectin which is superior in prevention and safety to all vaccines apparently being suppressed? An active disinformation campaign about this drug is also being waged in the media. Is this campaign to protect the financial interest in vaccines by the pharmaceutical companies over that of a drug which is cheap and from which little profit can be made?

    It seems possible that we are being deceived on a massive scale and that thousands of lives have already been unnecessarily lost due to suppression of information.

    Many countries are waking up to this, including India. India last week adopted Ivermectin and in essence by doing so has given the middle finger to the WHO which also appears to favor the interests of their pharmaceutical benefactors over individuals.

    Please see:

  12. Steven Martinek (Wen were ND!) May 12, 2021 at 7:27 am

    Indulge a clumsy defense of Father Ted. Jenkins is to be contrasted, not conflated, with the Hesburgh legacy. Jenk is a man of shallow heart and intellect and Faith–this was certainly not true of Father Ted. Father Hesburgh, above (and beneath) all was a devout and faith-filled faith-driven priest. This cannot be said of Jenkins. It is true, thru the lens of retro-vision that Father Ted made some errors of intellect which opened the campus to influences we now see clearly to have been nefarious, ultimately. Yet they were not clearly venal or nefarious when first taken. Father Ted did not make errors of the heart or soul–as does Jenkins. In my view, the grandeur once righteously enjoyed by Notre Dame reflects well upon the life’s work of Father Ted. The increasing venality to which our beloved University is devolving belongs to the forces of secularism and compromised character and lack of intellectual and spiritual integrity of men like Jenkins. Steve

  13. Mr. Dotterweich,
    Covid ‘vaccines’ are not typical vaccines – they are gene modification therapy drugs. These drugs have never been in the market before, and long term side effects are unknown. Many people are pro-vaccine but anti-gene modification therapy drugs. So the term “anti-vaxx” does not apply. If someone wishes to be part of this experimental drug trial, which is what it is, that is their choice, as with any drug trial. However, it is wrong to require someone to take any experimental drug because they can not know what they are consenting to, as the effects are not fully known. As I stated in my comment above, going forward, because of the emergence of Ivermectin, which is superior to covid ‘vaccines’ in every way with a known long term safety record, there is no need for vaccines at all.

  14. Paul Joseph Devitt May 11, 2021 at 9:27 am

    Mr. Doyle seems to miss the point of the objection to the Fr. Jenkins’ mandate i.e. the subject of the Sycamore Trust statement. Although we might debate the safety, necessity and efficacy of the gene therapy serums – euphemistically called vaccines, the central issue here is whether the conditions justify his decision to compel a student to be vaccinated who reasonably objects.

    If people want to get the jab, so be it. In some cases, it may be medically warranted I suspect. If the jab makes you feel safe that’s up to you. The Catholic Church has provided plenty of cover for those that believe the propaganda.

    As other Catholic positions have held, that permission to chose to get the jab, does not give rise to a right to compel others to get the jab when it violates their individual conscience based upon an alternative understanding of the facts.

    To assert that the mandate is based upon the “common good” is an opinion that is grounded on the propaganda not the facts in my humble view. Most of the facts and truth have been effectively censored in favor of fear narratives favoring institutional control of peasants and hundreds of billions in windfall profits for the big pharma. If the “common good” justification can be conjured in such a way, we will be on our way to predications offered by Mr. Martinek.

    The facts are that the the virus can be contained in most cases with therapeutics and, with rare exceptions, primarily hurts old people over age 70 with comorbidities. The idea that you would force the serum on everyone for a virus where alternative treatments are available and the death rate under 1% is irrational. Moreover, the serum itself is for the single spike protein only (where we have already reached herd immunity it seems) is unapproved in emergency use with big pharma immunity, unknown efficacy and many documented and censored cases of serious side effects including infertility for women.

    in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis

  15. Steven Martinek '71, '74 May 11, 2021 at 5:51 am

    The warm caring compassion in the comment from Paul Joseph Devitt is compelling and exemplary. I find it personally humbling. It is clear to me that he harbors greater concern for the soul and spirit of Father Jenkins, in-his-error, than I am able to summon. It appears to me that Devitt is struggling to understand, as I believe Jesus would do. I am grateful for such an example on this thread. Steve (We were ND!)

  16. Of course ND should require students to be vaccinated. ND should also require faculty and staff to be vaccinated. This is simply a matter of protecting the common good.

    The CDC has stated that the approved vaccines are effective and safe, and if someone vaccinated does contract Covid19 the vaccine will help minimize the risk of serious health complications.

    Anyone disagreeing with the CDC is of course welcome to do so, but I trust the facts they present.

    Using Florida as an example is unfortunate at best. The Governor’s decision to override any local responses to this pandemic is unfortunate at best, and dangerous at worst. Less than 50% of the population has been vaccinated

    In the section under “Church Teaching” the implied link to the CDF does not actually link to the CDF. It links to this page Just a cautionary note, if anyone is interested in the actual Church teaching make sure you are reading actual Church sources and not a link like in this article that implies it is presenting what the CDF said.

    Both Pope Francis and Pope Emeritus Benedict have received the vaccination.

    They are both leading by example and I applaud that.

    • Dear Mr. Doyle, respectfully, nothing that you have provided in your comment is, in medical and scientific terms, germane to the matter of the safety and efficacy of these nucleic acid pharmaceutical platforms, in this case employed to have some vaccine properties in a situation that is not a pandemic and where alternative care and treatments are available (pertinent to the legal matter of the issuance of an EUA). At my podcast, my guest and I have thoroughly discussed the EUA of one, the Johnson & Johnson product:

      You have, again I respectfully submit, surrendered your Citizen’s responsibility for asking difficult questions of various authorities. Human organizations–in matters of international affairs, public policy, medicine, science, technology, communication and the arts–do not function well outside of the context of reasoned, informed, and actively-engaged interrogation of those organizations and their representatives as well as the vigorous and honest pursuance of free conversation among the Citizenry. In the case of Catholic churchmen, they are not speaking and acting in matters of Faith and morals when they are treating the matter of all things COVID. Further, regarding the grave matter of the potential for genetic self-mutilation by use of certain pharmaceutical agents in question here, I believe many churchmen are acting with profound irresponsibility and contrary to Church teaching. I explain this an interview requested by Catholic Family News, here:

    • It seems that we need to really examine how the University of Notre Dame has put the future flourishing (to use Professor MacIntyre’s favorite term) and reproductive fitness of not just UND students at risk, but that of the many. More of the story here:

      So, the risk (better characterized as a hazard) that they are insisting on the students assuming is unconscionable given the state of ignorance that exists regarding these nucleic-acid pharmaceutical platforms and the habituation of the public towards them. Let us see how the Fauci scandal continues to unfold.

      As Father Hesburgh sold those entrusted to him out to the Rockefellers, so now Father Jenkins is selling out his students–and as I said, more than merely his students–to the current regime of anti-humans.

      It seems that the schemers stacked to the highest levels, apparently including our Pontiff, have gone a “bridge” too far.

  17. Paul Joseph Devitt May 10, 2021 at 8:45 pm

    How Fr. Jenkins squares himself as a Thomist is perplexing. As the legal letter states, his jab policy violates law and as J. McPeak said earlier also violates the Nuremberg Code. Neither moral law, civil law or laws against atrocities are enough to give Fr. Jenkins pause to apply prudence. He always seems to disappoint on the moral issues of the day. He rides the modernist ideology with his kindred spirits hiding sin inside of malformed conscience.

    Perhaps it’s the propaganda that has his mind confused, but more likely he wants to be liked and admired by the cool kids in the media and aspirational peers. He could have followed a recommendation more like Catholic U but then he wouldn’t have been seen as the front runner that he is. Our clerical class appears to be at peak cowardice.

    Thousands of these kids apparently already have the immunity from the virus itself. Now they must get the jab. Huh? 99.9% of these kids have no risk to mortality and so many asymptomatic. The gene therapy serum on these kids is bogus and unconscionable in my mind and the massive censorship around this subject shows there’s another agenda.

  18. Experimental vaccines are unnecessary because Ivermectin has now proven to be a superior option in the battle against Covid-19. The NIH has given a green light to Ivermectin, which is just now emerging for Covid prevention and also as a therapeutic should one contract the disease. Used prophylactically, it is 85% effective. There is no transmission and it works against all variants. As a therapeutic, it is reputed to kill the virus in early stages in 24 hours, and in 48 hours in late stage disease. For a meta-analysis of all 52 clinical trials, see:

    Ivermectin is an extremely safe drug with minimal side effects, and its creators won the Nobel Prize in 2015. It is on the WHO’s list of world’s most valuable medicines, and has been previously used for treatment of tropical diseases such as Dengue Fever as well as parasitic infections.

    After the Senate Hearing on Ivermectin in December of 2020 (…, over 50 clinical trials were initiated in January and February and the results have been coming in over the last few weeks. The results have been described as “astounding” (Newsmax). Bloomberg called Ivermectin a “wonder drug”. Ivermectin has virtually eradicated Covid in Ethiopia, and has been adopted for use in 20 countries already, and most recently in India.

    Ivermectin should at least be an option (among others) recognized by all employers and universities. There is no reason to require an a drug still in the experimental stage. I would like to point out as well that it is against the Nuremberg Code to require a experimental drug be taken without informed consent. For the vaccines, informed consent is not possible because long term effects are not known. It could also potentially be argued that requiring a vaccine for admission is a form of coercion, which is also against the Nuremberg Code.

    For any remains students who have not been vaccinated, the FLCCC has information on how to find doctors who are knowledgeable and can prescribe Ivermectin. Simply Google: FLCCC, “How to get Ivermectin”.

  19. Steven Martinek PL ND '71, '74 (We were ND) May 10, 2021 at 1:28 pm

    Following on Mike Boyle’s points, the University is well-advised to consider the future liability she may incur by mandating the stabs. Anyone with future issues and damages with blood clots or infertility who were coerced to follow the mandate to be inoculated in order to continue as an ND student will present a colorable case that following the mandate was not voluntary and proximately caused the damage. To Dempsey’s point, a dear and trusted friend of mine also disagrees strongly with me on this topic. While I love and respect him, and his views and instincts and judgment–his position on this topic eludes me completely. Not only does Jenkins have no valid legal, intellectual, ethical or moral authority to issue or enforce such a mandate–there are no facts or circumstances to even warrant its consideration (even excluding the paramount issue of abortion-taint).

  20. To my good friend Bill Dotterweich, with whom I almost always agree:
    Bill, I take your point, and you can be sure we weighed carefully whether the mandate implicated ND’s Catholic identity clearly enough to warrant our covering the issue. We are, as always, guided by Church teaching, which in respect to COVID-19 vaccination is that “as a rule” it should be voluntary – simply an application of the general principle respecting compulsory medication. Of course you are right that many actions can be compelled though not morally obligatory. Take driving on the right. The Vatican statement is specific to COVID vaccination.

    The inquiry is fact-specific. For starters, it’s safe to assume the national situation is not grave enough to warrant an edict requiring the vaccination of every person in the country. ND does not attempt to make a case for an exception. To the contrary, it thinks it unnecessary to require vaccination of faculty, staff, and the thousands of other employees. More, over 90% of students are already vaccinated, no one has been hospitalized at the peak of cases, and now COVID has almost disappeared.

    The principle of voluntariness is especially applicable for experimental medications like these vaccines. One doesn’t have to go to the social network to appreciate why parents and students might be apprehensive if they are more, but not unreasonably, risk averse than others. Besides the known side effects, as the Siri letter observes, “The FDA Briefing Documents also make clear much is unknown about the safety of these products, including,

    • “[a]dverse reactions that are very uncommon,”
    • adverse reactions “that require longer follow-up to be detected,” and
    • whether the vaccines will cause “[v]accine-enhanced disease.”

    In sum, on the face of it ND seems to be transgressing the applicable ethical principle clearly enough to take note. If the administration has a counter, let’s hear it.

  21. Mike Boyle '91 May 10, 2021 at 12:58 pm

    I am sorry to hear that already 90% of students have taken the vaccine. There must be extraordinary social pressure to do so. Thank you to Sycamore for highlighting this issue. Thank you, Steve Martinek and others for your comments. The presentation to the public of both the RT-PCR tests and the vaccines is rife with fraud and intellectual dishonesty that can be understood with only a little legwork. The meat in the middle – the magic virus – does not merit a fundamental reworking of society or governance. Two German physicians recently made available a preprint of a chapter in their upcoming book – chapter titled The Vaccination Craze – which is highly informative re the vaccines. One significant risk they raise is that the spike proteins of the virus which the body recreates based on instructions from the mRNA vaccine could take up long term residence in the vascular lining and cause significant blood related complications.

  22. Steven Martinek May 10, 2021 at 11:10 am

    To anonymous “ND Alum”: Good guess. Steve ’71, ’74

  23. It is an experimental vaccine, made like no other in the past, and it is not approved by the FDA. You cannot force someone to take something like this. It’s outrageous!

  24. Frank Freidhoff, 1958 May 10, 2021 at 10:41 am

    I must disagree with my classmate, Bill Dotterweich, on the idea that the vaccination be mandatory. Since the vaccine is experimental the long term effects are unknown. Further the effectiveness of the vaccine is not really known as it may be determined that follow-on injections may be required, which will make it a “shot” rather than a vaccine, much like the flu shot. We do not live, as of yet, in a dictatorship that controls all aspects of our lives. The rush mandate an item such as an injection for university students who for the most part are not in the the primary risk population, is just not justified. Fr. Jenkins, unfortunately, is in the progressive liberal camp and is following that herd in the “mandatory” arena.

  25. Steven Martinek May 10, 2021 at 8:52 am

    If William were an entering student, I would greatly respect and defend his decision, for himself, to submit to the experimental gene therapy innoculation. I would certainly and emphatically not support his endorsement of any proper legal, ethical, or moral authority for Lord Jenk to mandate shots for other students who question or denounce the “vaccines” as to need, efficacy, or morality.

  26. Willliam E. Dotterweich 1958 May 10, 2021 at 8:23 am

    Seem to me the University is right on this one. The safety and confidence of all students need not be undermined by the shouts of a few anti-vaxers, who in main have been unduly influenced by social media, much of which arises from Russian bots. The allegation by the bishops that “since vaccination is not a moral obligation, it must not be mandatory” seems an absurd supposition that all rules must be underpinned by “moral obligation”. And Bishop Paprocki should stay in his lane (whatever that may be).

    Approximately half of the concerns on social media about “side effects” of the vaccines arise from Russian bots, which are intended to undermine vaccination efforts in the United States.

    Frankly I think it is stretch for the Sycamore Society to get involved in this discussion. Sorry, folks, but amazing at may seem, I’m all in with Father Jenkins on this one.

    • Mr Dotterweich, with all respect for you as an individual, I must say that your above comment is filled with gross inaccuracies and falsehoods. I am hold a doctoral degree from the University of Notre Dame in biology. Though not a specialist in virology or immunology, I am immersing myself as deeply as I can in these areas given that I have entered into public debate on the matter over a year ago. I can assure you that I do my own, deep analysis of the topics. I was was early to raise serious questions of both a biological and a theological nature. I do not receive direct or indirect promptings from what you refer to as “Russian bots.” Thank you for taking the time to read this. You will be in my prayers.

  27. Steven Martinek, '71, '74 May 10, 2021 at 7:11 am

    Dear fellow “loyal sons and daughters of Our Lady”: Each season, each crisis, each choice, each opportunity for spiritual affirmation and growth–all seem fodder for squander by The Jenk. With each stumbling step I try to believe we will surely stumble and fall no farther. Tragically, each subsequent moment of hope is dashed–as here again. I commend all to read the law firm letter in Appendix B. Here is my prediction of moral, intellectual, and constitutional heresy to come in the next 5 years on the “precedent” of the upholding of this horrendous mandate. Jenk will yield to the luciferian temptation to fully flex the autocratic “authority” he has arrogated unto himself under the “convenient cover of contrived crisis.” Incoming students as early as 2026 will be required to “pledge allegiance” to all manner of Leftist PC prattle, before being permitted to enroll on campus. They will not be required to affirm the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed, or the Pledge of Allegiance to Our Ragged Old Flag; but they will be required to denounce all “hate speech” as mercurially defined by the Left and the media. They will be required to pledge allegiance to the concept of mortal efforts to reverse or correct climate change and global warming. They will be required to endorse CRT and espouse the dubious nobility of BLM and similar bowel movements. They will need to voice unquestioning support for every utterance of the LGBTQIXYZ agenda. All this will be required to establish the campus once ours, as a civil “safe space” for anything but intellectual debate or moral growth and development. Ray Price sings a song I can no longer enjoy, “I wish I were 18 again.” We were ND! “Holy Mary, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.” Steve ’71, ’74

    • Well, it seems as if my comment (a respectful and an informative one) has been removed, along with your response. This is precisely where the problem begins and the failure to solve the problem. The crafting of unreality and the capitulation to, compliance with, and the participation in polished fantasies

  28. What a turn of events!: in 1971, conscientious objectors at Notre Dame had to resist the US government; today they have to resist the administration of the university. How sad to see my alma mater become a sentinel of the state. Why any alumnus would give money to what is essentially a public school in a Catholic neighborhood (ND), is beyond me.

Comments & Questions