Fr. Pagliarani said that it's a question of prudence; Okay but wouldn't it be a mortal sin against the virtue of prudence if a father of a family takes the vaccine knowing that it is dangerous? The father is risking leaving his family without a father.
Bear with me, because I am going on gut instinct here alone and am totally open to feedback on this. I am going to wade into the swamp here, because a lot of this stuff goes over my head, and I have made no bones about it since I got here. But I don't get embarrassed easily by any stretch, so enjoy getting my feet wet and trying to figure out complex ethical issues, etc.
The way I see it, is that the virtue of Justice would trump prudence. *In this case, I would say that a father may in fact have a duty to take it if it means he can continue to provide for his family, even if that time ends up as short. In other words, nobody knows when they will die, so that father may have died at age 36 anyway, regardless of what he took or not. (NOW, side point: if the person is given a known lethal injection of potassium chloride in sufficient quantity to stop his heart, well, that is different. And yes, it would be stupid for the father to take it, because for sure, 100%, he would know it would stop his heart quickly right then.)
Carrying on with my first point of the situation, *If he did not take it, and the family starves, then I would say that would be a mortal sin.
It would be another way of saying the father has to be willing to sacrifice his life for his family. I think we are both in the same ballpark, but struggling to grasp it from two different sides of the plate.
It's kind of like what I was trying to explain to Sean on his other thread. He is a father, and he first owes Justice to HIS family, to provide and protect them in an SHTF scenario, but then additionally, as a Catholic, he owes in justice to help others in that scenario next.