University of Scranton “care for the entire person” motto is lip service. The U is denying students opportunities to participate on campus learning based on religious beliefs.
Inclusion is a mere marketing slogan - Stay Away.
Can you be more specific?
1 Like
This is on my daughter’s list so I’d be interested in hearing more about this.
I’m guessing the OP’s child is unable to be vaccinated due to “religion “ and therefore won’t be able to take classes on campus?
If this is the point of OP’s post, I applaud Scranton for making their community relatively more safe.
10 Likes
If that is the OP’s point (and I expect you are correct), here are links to more info.
Vaccination Requirements for Students
All students attending in-person classes or accessing campus for other reasons must be fully vaccinated by August 27, 2021.
4 Likes
As others have guesses correctly the U did not honor sincerely held religious belief exemption requests. Before you get too comfortable Mwfan1921 about the ‘relative safety’ please be aware that staff are ALLOWED to have exemptions. If you are looking for a fully vaxed community, Scranton would NOT be the place.
I am a frontline worker in law enforcement who worked the entire shutdown and well aware of risks. A simple read through CDC and drug company literature will show that the vax does not stop transmission.
In terms of denying the RE (religious exemption) Scranton was sneaky and underhanded. I urge you to look up how Boston College handled the same. By the first week of July, BC students knew the RE’s would be denied. Regardless of how you feel about the subject, BC was sensitive that time would be important for students looking to transfer.
Scranton strung students along.
Dozens of students wrote RE letters all summer. The school responded by having students complete another school issued form to accompany their RE letters. Any inquiries by parents (I know of dozens) were unanswered.
Scranton decided to string students along, fully aware that transfer deadlines would be missed, and ultimately send rejection letters on the last day possible to get the J&J vax.
I know of 4 families personally that ran out and got the J&J vax today. So in that sense, the Tammany Hall style strong arm policy worked for the U. Families who were nervous or concerned about the emergency use shot were jammed in a corner and ultimately made a decision that haunts them (if you don’t care that people are concerned about long term safety consequences this thread is not for you).
This in no way fits the Scranton care model.
Other students who were strung along are left with little transfer options for the fall. I’d be a fool if I did not recognize that the timing was done with this in mind. Why string students along? Timing the decision to leave students no other options was wholly intentional meant to benefit the U at the expense of the student.
I have dozens of emails and texts from other parents who were a led to believe that an administration policy form was holding up an answer.
While you may guess I disagree with both Scranton and BC about denying RE’s, at least BC made the decision with a student first commitment, while Scranton USED students to hedge enrollment numbers.
Staff exemptions are honored fyi
I dont understand the concept of RE for a covid vaccine.
Aren’t all students required to be vaccinated against a whole array of diseases in order to enroll, and therefore there wouldn’t be no non vaccinated students on campus before covid and thus all students would be presumed not to qualify ?
Is there really a religion with edicts against the covid vaccine and not other vaccines? Or a religion that in the past few years has published an edict against vaccination?
I also dont understand where the idea of unknown long term consequences for vaccines comes from (I’d never heard of this before this week and now I’ve seen it three times in a as many days): traditional vaccines have been around literally for over 2 hundred years. If you worry about mRNA, sure, but J&J is Jenner/Pasteur methodology. Non controversial, safe, well known.
To me, trying to protect students and doing their utmost to try and offer a full experience does reflect “care”.
14 Likes
What religion opposes vaccines? I used to know of one (many years ago) whose members sometimes shied away from medical treatment in favor of healing by prayer, but it wasn’t a church rule and they didn’t avoid vaccinations. It wasn’t particularly effective method of dealing with acute illnesses either.
4 Likes
I think that this objection derives from an erroneous belief that some vaccines contain aborted fetal tissue.
1 Like
Not sure, but I suspect that this thread may cause the number of applications to the University of Scranton to rise.
3 Likes
Thanks for the clarification, Bill. I thought religious exemptions had to cite the religious rule that forbids the activity. I’m not aware of any religions that specifically forbid vaccines.
I think residential colleges require vaccination records before students can begin classes. Even our local community colleges required them pre-pandemic. It makes sense that they would take a look at the immunization records of the students who are requesting an exemption from the Covid vaccine to see if they’ve had others. It doesn’t surprise me that colleges are denying religious exemptions. It does surprise me that parents didn’t expect the denial. I think the longer it takes to get a response from a college the more likely it is that the answer will be no.
You’re right.
In this case, with Scranton being a Catholic college, the Catholic Church has no moral objection to vaccines and the Pope himself has come out publicly and urged people to get vaccinated. Apparently the teachings of the Pope don’t matter to some Catholics. Catholic parochial schools have required vaccines forever. This tempest in a teapot makes absolutely no sense. I think that the controversy has been created for political reasons and not for religious or health reasons.
7 Likes
Your statements reflect a misunderstanding of teaching of the Catholic Church. This document from the Church itself might help with understanding.
You will see an acknowledgment of the used of fetal cells on the development and testing of the covid vaccines (not fetal cells in the vaccines themselves), that it is morally permissible and can be for the common good when there is no other choice, but that one can still make their own decision based on their conscience and then must take precautions not to infect others, especially those at most risk.
At the same time, practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary. In any case, from the ethical point of view*, the morality of vaccination depends not only on the duty to protect one’s own health, but also on the duty to pursue the common good.* In the absence of other means to stop or even prevent the epidemic, the common good may recommend vaccination, especially to protect the weakest and most exposed. Those who, however, for reasons of conscience, refuse vaccines produced with cell lines from aborted fetuses, must do their utmost to avoid, by other prophylactic means and appropriate behavior, becoming vehicles for the transmission of the infectious agent. In particular, they must avoid any risk to the health of those who cannot be vaccinated for medical or other reasons, and who are the most vulnerable.
This is not to say Scranton can’t make their own decisions. I’m just sharing the Church’s view since there is is lot of misunderstanding and confusion.
1 Like
What am I misunderstanding?
The misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the Church’s view is related to the idea that the currently available vaccines in the US are not morally problematic. They are morally problematic because they used fetal cells obtained from elective abortions. Because of the pandemic, the are morally permissible now. There’s a difference. And it’s not carte blanche. The Church teaches we are to advocate for more morally acceptable vaccine options, i.e., vaccines that don’t use cells derived from aborted fetuses in their development or testing.
It’s also a misunderstanding that Catholics have to blindly follow whatever the Pope said. Not to be picky but the “teaching of the Pope” should only represent the teaching of the Church. He can help clarify teachings, but not make up his own rules. Not to say he has. He expressed some points of importance but left out others, at least in terms of what the media covers anyway.
And @Bill_Marsh, you are spot on about this:
It’s so rare these days to find a pure moral objection.
1 Like
[quote=“MACmiracle, post:17, topic:3547522, full:true”]
The misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the Church’s view is related to the idea that the currently available vaccines in the US are not morally problematic. They are morally problematic because they used fetal cells obtained from elective abortions. Because of the pandemic, the are morally permissible now. There’s a difference. And it’s not carte blanche. The Church teaches we are to advocate for more morally acceptable vaccine options, i.e., vaccines that don’t use cells derived from aborted fetuses in their development or testing.[/quote]
…………_____…_____________
I do not misunderstand and did not misrepresent the Church’s view. I am a Catholic. I never said whether they were morally problematic or not. I said that the Pope recommends them and that Catholic schools have always required vaccines. I’m well aware that testing used stem cells derived from fetal lines, but no fetal cells are contained in any individual vaccines.
Unfortunately seems to be the only area of morality that seems to come under this kind of scrutiny. Do the same Catholics who object on this basis reject the money which supports our Catholic schools because some of it was derived from lines of money originally obtained in the slave trade and the sex trafficking that went with it?
I did not say that Catholics have to blindly follow the Pope. Nor is that my understanding. I just have a problem with some of my fellow Catholics who ignore the Pope when his pronouncements are inconvenient and at the same time cite a “religious objection”, claiming church teachings as the basis.
1 Like
@MACmiracle @Bill_Marsh 
thanks.
It still doesn’t provide a religious exemption, though, right? Isn’t this typically something like “a religious authority forbids x”? (Such has Sikh men wearing a turban, not eating pork for Jews and Muslims, etc.?)
1 Like
I have the same feeling.
I’m sorry if what I said sounded like a personal criticism. I tried not to have it sound that way, but it probably came off like that anyway. I am reacting that same kind of hypocrisy and the politics taking precedence over faith, not you personally. We do need to care for each other and consider the common good and I’m not seeing a lot of that these days and it’s getting to me. So I jumped in your comments rather than giving you the benefit of the doubt. I’m sorry for that.
As far as Scranton goes, more notice would have been nice.
My daughter does not go there. However, she had more warning than Scranton gave and got an exemption. Having lots of time to think about it, she decided to get a vaccine because she will be living on campus and in a position where she will have to interact with other students in a position of authority. She is devout and it was a very hard decision for her. We talked about it a lot, for months really. The vaccine seems to have triggered a serious allergy which could be life-threatening in the future, but I am hoping for the best and that it will settle down when her immune system calms down. In any case, she can own her decision because she weighed it all and did what she thought was best. All kids should have that opportunity.