Hugh N. Cry
Be ready. Think how you will respond when your employer presents this as mandatory. For extra measure see if your province, state, country has a religious exemption form.
Ultraviolet
"Religious exemption?" When Pope Francis is openly saying it has to be done? No. The way you beat this devil is by summoning a more vicious one to fight it. Invoke The Creed of Greed. "This isn't really about the money. I mean that. I mean it enough I'll sign for a 70-30 split of the settlement, your favor."

As C.S. Lewis famously made his demon say in The Screwtape Letters "Bring us back …More
"Religious exemption?" When Pope Francis is openly saying it has to be done? No. The way you beat this devil is by summoning a more vicious one to fight it. Invoke The Creed of Greed. "This isn't really about the money. I mean that. I mean it enough I'll sign for a 70-30 split of the settlement, your favor."

As C.S. Lewis famously made his demon say in The Screwtape Letters "Bring us back food, or be food yourself." ..and when it comes to a truly infernal hunger, personal injury lawyers put Screwtape to shame.
Hugh N. Cry
Doesn’t have to be Francis creed. Nowadays it can mean almost anything to the State from faithful Catholic to humanist tree hugger. Take your pick. Like “A Man For All Seasons”: I’m hiding behind the laws of the land.
Ultraviolet
Problem is, there aren't any laws covering this (and thank God for that). I'm hiding behind the terrible greed of ruthless personal injury lawyers, who will make it prohibitively expensive if an employer "requires" vaccines. You refuse, they fire you, and then you sue.

My earlier point was that our esteemed Pontiff and his cronies have given the mandatory vaccine requirements a proverbial "shot …More
Problem is, there aren't any laws covering this (and thank God for that). I'm hiding behind the terrible greed of ruthless personal injury lawyers, who will make it prohibitively expensive if an employer "requires" vaccines. You refuse, they fire you, and then you sue.

My earlier point was that our esteemed Pontiff and his cronies have given the mandatory vaccine requirements a proverbial "shot in the arm" (pun intended), thanks to their "official Catholic" opinions on vaccines. They've made it near impossible for an ordinary Catholic layman to claim on religious grounds that they refuse to be vaccinated. --which I suspect was their intent all along.

Imagine your attorney trying to argue that, as a Catholic, you find vaccines contrary to your faith. Your employer's attorneys will gleefully read into the official court transcript every stupid pro-vaccine comment Pope Francis has made, followed by those of the various Cardinals and Bishops excusing the fact the vaccines are made from murdered infants.

They will then ask the following question, either directly to you if your choose to take the stand, or rhetorically to the jury during the closing arguments.

If the head of the Catholic Church insists everyone must be vaccinated. If the highest leaders in Catholic Church insist it's morally acceptable to be vaccinated, even with full knowledge of the source material, HOW then can a mere Catholic layman claim otherwise?

What your employer's attorneys will NOT want to discuss is the medical aspect, namely, how many people have become seriously ill and even died after taking the vaccine.An employer can't require an employee to expose themselves to a substance when there is a real probability it will make them ill. Likewise, they can't fire them for refusing to expose themselves to it. Tons of case law backing that, dating back to the asbestos-era. That frames the issue entirely as a workman's compensation case.

It's going to happen. The media and various "business writers" have been pushing the narrative "it's totally legal for employers to require COVID vaccination". What they all ignore is there isn't any case-law backing that claim because it hasn't gone to trial, and juries are invariably composed of ordinary workers, not business-owners or similar corporate types.
Live Mike
Council of Europe - Parliamentary Assembly: Covid-19 vaccines: ethical, legal and practical considerations Adopted by the Assembly on 27 January 2021
7.3.1 ensure that citizens are informed that the vaccination is NOT mandatory and that no one is politically, socially, or otherwise pressured to get themselves vaccinated, if they do not wish to do so themselves;
7.3.2 ensure that no one is discrim…More
Council of Europe - Parliamentary Assembly: Covid-19 vaccines: ethical, legal and practical considerations Adopted by the Assembly on 27 January 2021
7.3.1 ensure that citizens are informed that the vaccination is NOT mandatory and that no one is politically, socially, or otherwise pressured to get themselves vaccinated, if they do not wish to do so themselves;
7.3.2 ensure that no one is discriminated against for not having been vaccinated, due to possible health risks or not wanting to be vaccinated;
pace.coe.int/en/files/29004/html
Live Mike
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights No. 14668, PART II, Article 7 Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations - 19 December 1966 and Registered ex officio on 23 March 1976
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimenta…More
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights No. 14668, PART II, Article 7 Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations - 19 December 1966 and Registered ex officio on 23 March 1976
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation."
treaties.un.org/…volume-999-I-14668-English.pdf
2 more comments from Live Mike
Live Mike
Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal - 1950. Text Adopted by the International Law Commission at its second session, in 1950 and submitted to the General Assembly as a part of the Commission’s report covering the work of that session. The report, which also contains commentaries on the principles, appears in …More
Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal - 1950. Text Adopted by the International Law Commission at its second session, in 1950 and submitted to the General Assembly as a part of the Commission’s report covering the work of that session. The report, which also contains commentaries on the principles, appears in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1950, vol. II, para. 97.
Principle I
Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.
Principle II
The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.
Principle III
The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.
Principle IV
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
Principle V
Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.
Principle VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
(b) War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
(c) Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
Principle VII
Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.
legal.un.org/…sh/draft_articles/7_1_1950.pdf
Live Mike
The Nuremberg Code - 1947
1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should …More
The Nuremberg Code - 1947
1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill, and careful judgment required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.
media.tghn.org/…ume_313_The_Nuremberg_Code.pdf
Scapular
Thanks Mike good point. I have written to my employer and refused.
Hugh N. Cry
These are all great “laws” procedures, tactics to use to CYA. Better to think now than be ill-prepared.