Religious Liberty Should Protect Catholic Families too. Weighing in on Florida

Weighing in on the latest issues affecting Catholic families in the state of Florida.

As many of you know, this is not a new issue. Given that CoGforLife was founded in Florida, supporting parents who want to avoid any involvement with abortion-derived cell lines (ADCL) in their children’s medications has been central to our mission from the very beginning. Debi, our founder, met with bishops on numerous occasions, provided them with extensive documentation, and worked directly with parents seeking ethical alternatives. She even assisted families in traveling to Japan so their children could receive ethically produced vaccines and remain eligible to attend Catholic schools.

For more than 25 years, we have pursued every reasonable avenue to address this issue, including efforts to import ethical alternatives and restore access to single-dose products that Merck discontinued. Throughout that time, we have witnessed considerable debate, finger-pointing, and rhetoric, yet very little meaningful progress. This is not the Catholic way. The 2005 Pontifical Academy for Life (PAFL) document stated that the use of these ADCL-dependent vaccines could be tolerated on a temporary basis. Twenty-one years can hardly be considered temporary. When this issue first arose, many of us were making decisions for our own children. Today, it affects our grandchildren and, in some cases, even our great-grandchildren.

This situation can be resolved by fulfilling our communal responsibility to secure access to ethical alternatives. That responsibility does not rest solely with CoGforLife. It is shared by parents, medical professionals, and Church leaders. Across the country, thousands of parents and healthcare providers are waiting for ethical options to become available, including many in Florida, and that number continues to grow. Will we remain complacent and wait another 21 years for ethical options? Can we continue to tolerate Pharma’s satisfaction with these repulsive, tainted vaccines? Or are we going to work together charitably to find the solution? Let us move beyond debating this issue on social media and engage in the meaningful conversation it deserves, guided by fraternity, charity, and mutual respect. Our faith calls us to nothing less, in fact, it demands it.

On July 31, 2026, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier sent a letter to the Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops questioning why Catholic schools in the state refuse to recognize religious exemptions to vaccine requirements. His concern was straightforward: if Florida law protects religious exemptions for students, and if Catholic teaching has long emphasized parental authority, conscience, and the moral duty to oppose cooperation with abortion when possible, then Catholic leaders should explain why Catholic families are being denied that protection.

Uthmeier put the issue plainly: “It doesn’t violate the First Amendment to ask a private school why it isn’t following state law and respecting parental rights. If there’s a ‘religious teaching’ requiring vaccine mandates, they should cite it and explain how it can contradict the Catechism and other dioceses.” That is a fair question, and Catholic parents deserve a clear answer.

Background, Commentary and Real Solutions

Since approximately 2014, Florida’s dioceses have followed a uniform policy of refusing religious exemptions for vaccines that many parents object to because of their connection to abortion-derived cell lines, generally citing the “common good.” Before that statewide no-exemptions policy was applied to Catholic schools, what was the actual record of harm the policy was meant to prevent? How many Catholic school employees or students contracted vaccine-preventable diseases? Were there documented cases of pregnant employees contracting rubella? Were any unborn children diagnosed with congenital rubella syndrome? Because such diseases are required to be reported to local health departments, the relevant data should be available and should inform any honest discussion of risk, policy, and conscience.

Those questions matter because Catholic schools exist to help parents form their children in faith, conscience, and truth. For that reason, it is troubling when Catholic parents are told that their sincerely held religious objections may be set aside as a condition of receiving a Catholic education. Coercing parents—or imposing an obligation they believe is offensive to God—is not merely a school-policy dispute. It raises serious questions of Christian justice, civil law, and Catholic teaching.

Florida’s Catholic bishops state that “religious freedom” permits Catholic schools to deny families religious vaccine exemptions, even as many of those schools receive substantial taxpayer support through Florida’s school-choice programs. Religious liberty, however, cannot be treated as a one-way street. If the Church expects government to respect its religious convictions, it should not disregard the sincerely held religious beliefs of the families it serves while continuing to accept public support.

School-choice scholarships exist to serve students and families, not to finance institutions that selectively decide whose religious beliefs deserve protection. Public funding comes with public responsibilities. Catholic schools remain free to articulate their mission and policies, but taxpayers should not be compelled to subsidize the denial of protections that the state has recognized for the very families these programs are meant to help.

Supporters of stricter school mandates often point to liability concerns, arguing that schools could face legal exposure if an unvaccinated child were to infect others. But schools are generally protected by the same legal framework that recognizes religious exemptions for citizens. The reverse concern should not be dismissed: if a school denies a religious exemption and pressures a parent, under threat of expulsion, into vaccinating a child who later suffers an adverse reaction, the school may face serious legal and moral questions of its own.

None of this means the Church must accept a practice merely because the state permits it. Many things may be legal without being moral, and the Church has every right—and at times a duty—to oppose unjust laws. But a law designed to protect religious freedom is not, by its nature, unjust. It protects both the Church and her members. More importantly, Catholic dioceses should recognize conscience-based exemptions because Catholic teaching itself gives parents a central role in moral decision-making for their children.

The inconsistency becomes even clearer when viewed in ordinary parish life. A child with a medical, religious, or conscience exemption may still participate in CCD classes, RCIA programs, Sunday Mass, and the sacraments. If Catholic children attending public or other private schools may participate in parish life while holding valid exemptions, Catholic families paying tuition at parochial schools should not be treated less favorably.

Diocesan leaders should revisit policies that penalize Catholic parents for acting according to faith and conscience and include them in these discussions rather than avoid them. Religious liberty should not stop at the schoolhouse door, and it should not protect institutions while leaving families unprotected. If Catholic education is to remain faithful to its mission, it must respect the rights of parents who seek that education precisely because they want to form their children in accordance with Catholic faith, conscience, and truth.

We sincerely and humbly request, the dioceses which have stringent policies, to open their hearts and welcome open dialog. We are here to help.

“Where there is charity and wisdom, there is neither fear nor ignorance. Where there is patience and humility, there is neither anger nor vexation. Where there is poverty and joy, there is neither greed nor avarice. Where there is peace and meditation, there is neither anxiety nor doubt.”

St Francis of Assisi