Credit: CDC/Debora Cartagena
Jan 12, 2026 / 06:00 am (CNA).
Catholic medical professionals and ethicists had mixed reactions to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) announcement last week that it has revised the recommended childhood and adolescent vaccine schedule.
In a press release on Jan. 5, the CDC announced a revised recommended childhood immunization schedule, which reduces the number of universally recommended vaccines from 18 to 11. It retains routine recommendations for all children against measles, mumps, rubella, polio, pertussis, tetanus, diphtheria, Haemophilus influenzae type b, pneumococcal disease, human papillomavirus (HPV), and varicella (chickenpox).
Vaccines for rotavirus, influenza, COVID-19, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, meningococcal disease, and RSV now shift to recommendations for high-risk groups or after “shared clinical decision-making” between providers and families.
According to a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) memo, the CDC “applies shared clinical decision-making recommendations when evidence indicates that individuals may benefit from vaccination based on an analysis of the individual’s characteristics, values, and preferences, the provider’s medical judgment, and the characteristics of the vaccine being considered.”
Insurance companies must continue to cover all vaccines.
The changes come after President Donald Trump directed the heads of the CDC and HHS in December 2025 to “review best practices from peer, developed nations regarding childhood vaccination recommendations and the scientific evidence underlying those practices” and to make changes accordingly.
After reviewing the vaccination practices of 20 peer nations, a scientific assessment found that “the U.S. is a global outlier among developed nations in both the number of diseases addressed in its routine childhood vaccination schedule and the total number of recommended doses but does not have higher vaccination rates than such countries.”
“Science demands continuous evaluation,” Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), said in the CDC press release. “This decision commits NIH, CDC, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to gold standard science, greater transparency, and ongoing reassessment as new data emerge.”
Dr. Tim Millea, chair of the health care policy committee at the Catholic Medical Association (CMA), welcomed the changes, telling CNA that he thought the CDC approached the revisions “in a very logical way.”
“There has been a huge drop in trust surrounding vaccines since the COVID-19 pandemic,” Millea said. “The suggestions during COVID that the science was ‘settled’ rubbed a lot of us the wrong way.”
“The loudest critics of these new recommendations say this is ideology over science,” he said. “Science is a process, not an end. If we need more evidence, let’s get it,” he said, pointing out Bhattacharya’s call for “gold standard” science and “ongoing reassessment.”
Millea, a retired orthopedic surgeon, said he has confidence that Bhattacharya and Dr. Marty Makary, head of the FDA, are “not going to let ideology get ahead of science.”
The president of the National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC), John Di Camillo, told CNA in a statement regarding the updated immunization recommendations: “The people look to public health authorities precisely for this kind of guidance, which is responsive to continually evolving research, ongoing discussions among professionals in the medical field, and ethical principles that promote the common good, respect the dignity of the human person, and limit the interference of financial and ideological conflicts.”
‘Let those closest to the children make the decisions’
Millea acknowledged that critics of the CDC’s revised recommendations say comparing the U.S. vaccine schedule to that of much smaller, more homogeneous nations such as Denmark is like “comparing apples to oranges.”
However, he pointed out that the CDC’s revised schedule is simply a recommendation, and each of the 50 U.S. states is free to do what it deems best. “It’s like 50 laboratories. Let’s see what works the best.”
Invoking the Catholic principle of subsidiarity, Millea said “let those closest to the children who are getting the vaccinations make the decisions.”
“One of the positive aspects of the pandemic is that now we can take a step back and we’re questioning, not because something may be wrong, but maybe because it could be improved upon,” Millea said.
John F. Brehany, executive vice president and director of Institutional Relations at the NCBC, told CNA that “the new schedule appears to have been designed with good intent; that is, … to have gained public trust in the absence of mandates and to have contributed to population health outcomes that meet or exceed those of the U.S.”
“The new schedule does not take a ‘one size fits all’ approach but rather structures recommendations based on the nature of the diseases, vaccines in question, and characteristics of the children or patients who may receive them,” he continued. “This approach appears to be well-founded and to provide a sound foundation for respecting the dignity and rights of every unique human person.”
This will ‘sow more confusion’
Dr. Gwyneth Spaeder, a Catholic pediatrician in North Carolina, did not welcome the changes to the immunization schedule.
While she acknowledged that the damage to trust in institutions was substantial after the COVID-19 pandemic, she thinks the issues surrounding the COVID-19 vaccine’s safety and efficacy “cannot be compared” with the decades of studies demonstrating the safety of common children’s immunizations.
“It is not the same moral calculus,” she said.
She does not believe revising the immunization schedule this way will restore trust in institutions, which she said might take “years or even generations” to rebuild.
This method will “sow more confusion,” Spaeder said. “Instead of trying to rebuild trust in transparent, evidence-based practices, we have created a situation where everyone is told different things … For this child, we think this schedule is the best, for that child, there’s a different one. That’s not how public health works.”
She also said that comparing the homogeneous, relatively tiny population of 6 million in Denmark to that of the diverse population of 340 million in the U.S. is “a false comparison.”
“Their children are at less risk from falling through the cracks and contracting these diseases we try to vaccinate against,” she said, noting the protective public health effects of Denmark’s universal health care and generous parental leave policies.
“The children who will be most harmed in the U.S. are the underserved,” Spaeder said. “That’s being lost in this conversation. We can have a lot of high-level political arguments, but I am most concerned about my patients from single-parent homes who attend day care from young ages, or who are born to mothers who don’t have adequate prenatal care.”
“They will lose out the most from not being protected from these diseases.”
Read More![Michael Reagan, Catholic son of U.S. President Ronald Reagan, dies at 80 #Catholic
Republican strategist Michael Reagan speaks at a get-out-the-vote rally for U.S. Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle featuring U.S. Sen. John McCain at the Orleans, Friday, Oct. 29, 2010, in Las Vegas. | Credit: Ethan Miller/Getty Images
Jan 7, 2026 / 10:07 am (CNA).
Michael Reagan, the adopted son of former U.S. President Ronald Reagan and a longtime conservative activist who spoke publicly about his Catholic faith, died on Jan. 4 at 80 years old.Reagan’s family announced his death on Jan. 6 via Young America’s Foundation, which operates out of the “Reagan Ranch” near Santa Barbara, California. The announcement said Reagan died in Los Angeles “surrounded by his entire family.”“Michael was and will always remain a beloved husband, father, and grandpa,” the statement said, with the family expressing grief over “the loss of a man who meant so much to all who knew and loved him.”He is survived by his wife, Colleen, his son Cameron and his daughter Ashley. Born March 18, 1945, Reagan was adopted by Ronald Reagan and his then-wife Jane Wyman shortly thereafter. He was known throughout the 2000s as the host of “The Michael Reagan Show,” a nationwide radio program. Reagan was a Catholic through Wyman, a legendary movie star who herself was a third order Dominican. In a 2024 interview with EWTN News’ ChurchPOP, he pointed out that “a lot of people don’t know” of Wyman’s Catholic background. Joking when comparing his father’s Protestant beliefs with his mother’s Catholic faith, Reagan said: “When you get [to heaven], if you see my dad, look three floors above him [to see my mother].”Reagan told ChurchPOP Editor Jacqueline Burkepile that a large part of his family is Catholic. “My whole family is [Catholic],” he said. “My wife, Colleen, converted to Catholicism a few years ago. My son Cameron, his wife, Susanna, my daughter Ashley [are all Catholic].” His grandchildren have been baptized in the Church as well, he said.“So we got everybody on the planet,” he joked. In a Jan. 6 reflection, Reagan Ranch Director Andrew Coffin said Reagan “worked alongside Young America’s Foundation to share his father’s legacy and ideas with new generations.”In a separate statement, Young America’s Foundation President Scott Walker said that Reagan “was such a wonderful inspiration to so many of us.” Walker said that though Reagan had been optimistic about overcoming his recent health challenges, “unfortunately for all of us, the Good Lord decided to call him home sooner.” “That said, he and I also discussed his faith and devotion to Jesus,” Walker said. “That should give us all comfort during this difficult time as he is with the Lord.”](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/michael-reagan-catholic-son-of-u-s-president-ronald-reagan-dies-at-80-catholic-republican-strategist-michael-reagan-speaks-at-a-get-out-the-vote-rally-for-u-s-republican-senate-candidate-shar-scaled.jpg)
![Should Catholics use AI to re-create deceased loved ones? Experts weigh in #Catholic
A child holds a phone with the Replika app open and an image of an AI companion. Apps that promise to help recreate digital versions of deceased family members using AI pose a “spiritual danger” to Catholics and others who may use the technology in place of healthy grief, experts say. / Credit: Generated by an Artificial Intelligence (AI) system on Shutterstock
CNA Staff, Dec 27, 2025 / 07:00 am (CNA).
Apps that promise to help re-create digital versions of deceased family members using AI pose a “spiritual danger” to Catholics and others who may use the technology in place of healthy grief, experts say.The AI company 2wai ignited a controversy on social media in November after it revealed its eponymous app, which will allow users to fabricate digital versions of their loved ones using video and audio footage.App co-founder Calum Worthy said in a viral X post that the tech could permit “loved ones we’ve lost [to] be part of our future.” The accompanying video shows a family continuously interacting with the digital projection of a deceased mother and grandmother even years after she died.What if the loved ones we've lost could be part of our future? pic.twitter.com/oFBGekVo1R— Calum Worthy (@CalumWorthy) November 11, 2025 The reveal of the app brought praise from some tech commentators, though there was also considerable negative reaction. Many critics denounced it as “vile,” “demonic,” and “terrifying,” with others predicting that the app would be used to ghoulish ends such as using dead relatives to promote internet advertisements. Tech ‘could disrupt the grieving process’2wai did not respond to requests for comment on the controversy, though company CEO Mason Geyser told the Independent that the ad was deliberately meant to be “controversial” in order to “spark this kind of online debate.” Geyser himself said he views the app as a tool to be used with his children to help preserve the memories of earlier generations rather than as a means to having a relationship with an AI avatar. “I see it … as a way to just kind of pass on some of those really good memories that I had with my grandparents,” he said. Whether or not such an app is compatible with the Catholic understanding of death — and of more diffuse, esoteric topics like grief — is unclear. Father Michael Baggot, LC, an associate professor of bioethics at the Pontifical Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum, acknowledged that AI avatars “could potentially remind us of certain aspects of our loved ones and help us learn from their examples.”But such digital replicas “cannot capture the full richness of the embodied human being,” he said, and they risk “distorting the dead’s legacy” by fabricating conversations and interactions beyond the dead’s control. Catholic leaders have regularly remarked on both the heavy burden of grief and its redemptive power. Pope Francis in 2020 acknowledged that grief is ”a bitter path,” but it can “serve to open our eyes to life and the sacred and irreplaceable value of each person,” while helping one realize “how short time is.”In October, meanwhile, Pope Leo XIV told a grieving father that those mourning the death of a loved one must “remain connected to the Lord, going through the greatest pain with the help of his grace.” The Resurrection, he said, “knows no discouragement or pain that imprisons us in the extreme difficulty of not finding meaning in our existence.”Brett Robinson, the associate director of the McGrath Institute for Church Life at the University of Notre Dame, warned that there is “spiritual danger” in technology that outwardly appears to bring loved ones back from the dead. Technology is not a neutral product, he said, but one that “has a profound ability to shape our perception of reality, regardless of the content being displayed.”“In the case of re-presenting dead loved ones we meet one such case where prior conceptions about identity, vitality, and presence are being reshaped along technological lines,” he said. “If someone who no longer exists in human form, body and soul, can be ‘resurrected’ from an archive of the digital traces of their life, who or what are we actually engaging with?” he said. Robinson argued that present modes of technology have echoes of earlier centuries “when the cosmos was filled with presence — the presence of God, of angels, of demons, and of magic.” The problem at hand, he said, is that the “new magic” of modern technology “is divorced from the hierarchical, ordered cosmos of creation and the spiritual realm.”Donna MacLeod has worked in grief ministry for decades. She first became involved in Catholic grief counseling after the death of her youngest daughter in 1988. The funeral ministry evolved into Seasons of Hope, a grief support program for Catholics that “focuses on the spiritual side of grieving the death of a loved one.”MacLeod said the program is one of “hospitality and spirituality” that arises in an intensive community of individuals suffering from grief. “It builds parish communities,” she said. “People discover they’re not alone. That’s a big deal to grieving people — a lot of people feel very alone in their loss.” “And society expects everybody to move on,” she continued. “But grief has its own timetable. Those who are grieving start to understand that the Lord is with them and that he really cares about them. There’s hope and healing at the end of it.” “It’s doing what Christ asks us to do — walking with each other in hard times,” she said. Regarding the AI avatar technology, MacLeod acknowledged that those who have lost a loved one make it a “very high priority” to “seek connection” with the deceased. “People will say, ‘I’m not taking my loved one’s voice off of my answering machine,’” she said. “Or we have people taking out videos of family gatherings so they can see their loved ones again.”“Everyone seeks to still be connected with their loved ones,” she said. “It’s related to our Catholic faith and the communion of saints — people feel this spiritual connection with their loved ones.”MacLeod described herself as “on the fence” about how people could be affected by AI avatar apps. There could be “emotional and psychological risks interacting with AI versions of loved ones,” she admitted, though she said that many users “might look at it, but not get hung up on it,” unless they have underlying mental health issues. But “where the difficulty arises is that some people get stuck in the denial stage,” she said. Those suffering from grief can get desperate in such circumstances, she said, and sometimes resort to means such as mediums or psychics, which MacLeod pointed out the Church explicitly forbids. Whether or not AI avatars fall under that forbidden category is unclear. The Catechism of the Catholic Church expressly outlaws any efforts at “conjuring up the dead.” The use of mediums or clairvoyants “all conceal[s] a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings,” the Church says. Baggot said apps like 2wai’s “assemble data about the deceased without preserving the person.” He further argued that AI avatars “could also disrupt the grieving process by sending ambiguous signals about the survival of the departed person.”Robinson, meanwhile, acknowledged that it is “good to want to connect to deceased loved ones,” which he pointed out we do “liturgically through prayer and memorials that honor those souls that are dear to us.” He warned, however, against “technocratic creators of complex computational machines that are becoming indistinguishable from magic.”Such technology, he said, alters “the spiritual order” in ways “that are disordered and disembodied from the ritual forms that sustain religion and our belief that our eternal destiny rests with God in heaven and not in a database.”](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/should-catholics-use-ai-to-re-create-deceased-loved-ones-experts-weigh-in-catholic-a-child-holds-a-phone-with-the-replika-app-open-and-an-image-of-an-ai-companion-apps-that-promise-to-help-recr.webp)
