Conservative Cardinal Believes in "Moral Obligation" To Accept Controversial Vaccines

I read over the Voice of the Family transcript of his presentation and I am at a bit of a loss over his conclusions since his footnotes seem to 'cherry-pick' from the literature to make sure he doesn't ruffle the feathers of the 'magisterium' aka Pope Frank. So many pretzel-like contortions to make it fit a 'morality' rationale while side-stepping some fairly major concerns medically, scientifically and ethically from the perspective of robbing the individual of dignity, and livelihood, while forcing them to comply. (And this is quite a dance given all of the talk coming from PF about the 'disenfranchised'. So the folks that are 'disenfranchised' must be 'enfranchised(?!! - sounds awfully corporate to me) but the individuals who elect to exercise their free choice (please spare the 'unvaccinated' threat nonsense. At most they are a threat to themselves. It is quite evident scientifically now that both vaccinated and unvaccinated carry the same viral loads!) can be disenfranchised because they are exercising a God-given, and constitutionally protected, in the majority of First World countries, right ?! This is more difficult to fathom than 'transubstantiation', upon which we should be deliberating much more than this 'gain of function' human-concocted crime against humanity.

Proving, once again, that experts are not always right simply because they're experts. There is no "moral obligation" to accept something that isn't necessary (98% of US Covid patients recover) and has a real possibility of killing or crippling you for life. How much of a possibility? The medical community has deliberately and hopelessly muddled the data so accurate estimates can't be made. That alone shows they fear the truth.