My statement had nothing to do with jvf’s healthcare choices but his condemnation of the Pope, the Bishops, and presumably everyone vaccinated for coming to the conclusion that to do so is morally permissible. So yes placing his own warped judgement over that of the Church does put him in spiritual danger.
There is nothing "warped" in his viewpoint. Sure I might not express it the way he does, but it is perfectly acceptable for a person to take a more stringent position in avoiding anything to do with abortion. And there is nothing wrong with being critical of the pope or any other Church official, and in fact Catholics would have benefited from that when it comes to the sexual scandals that have destroyed the image of the Church in various Western countries. Finally, no one is bound by the prudential judgments of the pope on moral - or any other - issues, and nor is one required to agree with those judgments or show reverence for them, because the pope can be completely in error on matters of the prudential order. That said, I think your overreacting to this simply because it is a hot button issue. Each person is free to take or not take a vaccine.
Once again, I said nothing about his refusing to take the vaccine. He is of course free to do so. He is not free to proclaim he is right on this moral teaching and the Church is wrong. That is exactly what pro-abortion Catholic politicians like Pelosi do. He is also not free to demand the Church provide him a letter of exemption. If he feels so strongly about this he should be happy to lose his job to make his point.
from Lumen Gentium:
‘Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals
, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.”
Sorry, he is free to do just what you say he is not free to do, because he is not encouraging evil in rejecting elements of the argument put forward by the pope and the USCCB when they say that one may take a vaccine that involves remote material cooperation in a moral evil because that remote evil is outweighed by the duty to protect the common good.
In fact, the argument put forward by various Church officials (including the pope) is predicated on the idea that one is protecting the common good by taking one of the experimental vaccines, and that that particular action - i.e., taking a vaccine - protects the common good and that action is proportional to the duty to avoid cooperating materially and remotely in the evil of abortion, but that very point itself is open to debate. Now the fact that it is open to debate is why one remains completely free to disagree with Church officials, because it is not a truth of divine revelation or the natural law that the COVID-19 virus is dangerous enough to warrant material and remote cooperation in moral evil. Moreover, one can also disagree with Church authorities as it regards the safety of the mRNA and adenovirus vaccines. When one takes the issue of safety into account it is clear that no one can ever be required to do something that he believes in conscience will lead to his own physical harm, even if it is held to somehow protect the common good, nor does he have to accept the arguments of Church authorities when the questions surrounding the virus and the vaccines remain debatable. The bodily integrity of an innocent person cannot be violated by any earthly authority (not even that of the Church), and so one may ignore, and even openly disagree with, the prudential judgments of Church authorities in the present situation.
So, can one disagree with the pope or other Church officials as to whether or not the vaccines constitute a proportional good that mitigates against the material remote cooperation in the evil of abortion? Yes, and one can even speak out against Church authorities who promote such a notion, because those same authorities are not infallible in their prudential judgments.