Articles by SSPX Parishioners on Abortion-Linked Vaccines

[Stone]

From an SSPX parishioner...

The Vexatious Vaccine Versus Catholic Integrity – SSPX “Lifeboat” Leaking…

Catholic Truth blog | February 24, 2021

Martin Blackshaw, aka blogger Athanasius, has penned another very strong correction to the Pope Francis-inspired permission for Catholics to take the abortion-tainted Covid-19 vaccines.

During the current diabolical disorientation within the Church – otherwise fondly known as the Barque of Peter – many Catholics, seeking liturgical relief, took refuge in the  “lifeboat” provided by the Society of St Pius X (SSPX).

Returning to the traditional Latin Mass and Sacraments, plus the reassurance that the Society preaches only that which is found in Catholic Tradition, has kept a lot of us afloat, this past half-century. It is, therefore, hugely disappointing and, indeed, shocking, to discover that the  “lifeboat” is leaking – that the SSPX has decided,  for example,  to go along with the Vatican line  on the Covid-19 vaccines.

Having discussed our concerns about this already here, we feel the need to return to the topic, given the ongoing confusion and unrest felt by many lay people, including those long devoted to the SSPX.  Martin  Blackshaw writes…

Background

Most of us, I’m sure, could never have imagined just one year ago that in as short a period as 12 months the global economy would be smashed to pieces, millions would be put out of work, Christians would be denied their fundamental right to the public worship of God and the vast majority of the citizens on earth would be deprived of their natural freedom and liberties. Yet, in the name of a respiratory virus, which is relatively harmless for most people, this apocalyptic scenario has come upon the human race with lightening speed.

The culture shock resulting from such a transformation of our way of life is not new to Traditional Catholics who witnessed a similar evil sweep through the universal Church following Vatican II, trampling all that had been held sacred and secure for generations, thus paving the way for the present victory of Communist totalitarianism over the nations.

Archbishop Viganò  has more than once cited this work of iniquity as a coalition effort between operatives of the “deep Church” and operatives of the “deep State”, working together to bring about a New World secular Order over which Lucifer will usurp the Kingship of Christ.

That we are in fact living through the chastisement revealed by Our Lady in the Third Secret of Fatima is beyond question. Ours is a time largely of apostasy from God, even at the highest levels in the Church, resulting in victories for the anti-Christian forces beyond anything they, or we, could ever have imagined possible.

We know through faith of course that this time of trial will pass, as all such assaults of the devil on the Church and the world have passed. Our Lady will have the final victory and all will be restored in grace, though we know not how or when this will come about. What we do know is that matters are presently racing to a conclusion in this final battle between the serpent and she who will crush his head, so an end to it is not too far distant.

So much for the black and white of opposing forces in the present supernatural warfare, by which I mean the obvious evil and the obvious good as well as the happy outcome that those who are well disposed can see. But what about the grey areas, those danger zones which, like minefields, have to be traversed cautiously if we are to arrive safely at our destination when the war is won?

One such grey area has recently appeared before us and it threatens to wipe out a good many good souls who, in my opinion, have imprudently diverged from the safe path of the Church’s traditional and authentic moral teaching in favour of a more convenient, less arduous route only recently mapped out and offered non-authoritatively for alternative use.

I write of course about COVID-19 vaccines produced from or tested using the stem cell lines of aborted fetuses and the quite shocking position of the SSPX hierarchy in relation to their use.

If the faithful needed reminding that no particular institution in the Church is 100% safe at a time when the legitimate authorities themselves, the successors of St. Peter and the Apostles, are failing so manifestly in their duty to teach and to sanctify, it is in the SSPX position that such vaccines may be licitly taken in cases of necessity where moral alternatives are unavailable.

I first read (and re-read) this astounding and dangerously flawed guidance on the SSPX U.S. website some months back and I couldn’t believe my eyes. My Catholic conscience immediately alerted me to the falsehood before me.

I guess many other simple faithful were likewise seriously disturbed by this development, for the aforesaid website guidance was quickly taken down and replaced with a message announcing that an SSPX moral theologian was examining it, together with superiors, and would post an update soon.

Well it didn’t take long before the same guidance was back up on the website, only in a much longer text which read remarkably like sophistry.

The next I heard was that a certain Fr. Loop had been designated to present a conference on the subject to the faithful of Post Falls, Idaho – one of the largest Traditional Catholic enclaves in the U.S. I can only presume that many of the faithful remained troubled and Fr. Loop’s job was to reassure them. As far as I can tell from some comments I’ve read online, Fr. Loop failed in his task.

While this was ongoing I wrote to Fr. Fullerton, the U.S. District Superior, expressing my concern on the basis of the alternative (authentic) teaching of a number of tradition-leaning prelates whose counsel is that Catholics are not permitted to take vaccines tainted with the stem cell lines of aborted fetuses under any circumstances, given the very grave nature of the sin of abortion.

I wrote similarly to Fr. Loop, to Fr. Seligny, the SSPX moral theologian responsible for the U.S. website article and to Fr. Brucciani in the UK, who has sadly put out the same erroneous and dangerous advice. Not one of these priests granted me the courtesy of a response, which is extremely disturbing.

I did, however, receive a prompt and kind response from another SSPX superior who shall remain nameless for reasons of prudence.

Sadly, though, while evidently of upright intention, this superior is also on board with the “party line” (to use a crude term), convinced that the moral principle of “remote material co-operation” expressed in the works of St. Alphonsus may be applied in the case of grave necessity to abortion-tainted COVID vaccines.

Here is the proposition summarised in paraphrase: ‘The faithful are generally not permitted to receive abortion-tainted vaccines. However, in cases of grave necessity where moral alternatives are unavailable it is licit to receive such vaccines provided that objection is first made to the method of manufacture. This exception to the general rule, in cases of grave necessity only, amounts to “remote material co-operation”, a much lesser sin than formal co-operation.’

Juxtaposed to this proposition we have the joint letter of Cardinal Pujats, Archbishops Peta and Lenga and bishops Strickland and Schneider, reminding us of the authentic moral teaching of the Church. Here are a few excerpts of that letter which can be read in full here.

“In the case of vaccines made from the cell lines of aborted human fetuses, we see a clear contradiction between the Catholic doctrine to categorically, and beyond the shadow of any doubt, reject abortion in all cases as a grave moral evil that cries out to heaven for vengeance (see Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2268, n. 2270), and the practice of regarding vaccines derived from aborted fetal cell lines as morally acceptable in exceptional cases of “urgent need” — on the grounds of remote, passive, material cooperation. To argue that such vaccines can be morally licit if there is no alternative is in itself contradictory and cannot be acceptable for Catholics…

…The theological principle of material cooperation is certainly valid and may be applied to a whole host of cases (e.g. in paying taxes, the use of products made from slave labor, and so on). However, this principle can hardly be applied to the case of vaccines made from fetal cell lines, because those who knowingly and voluntarily receive such vaccines enter into a kind of concatenation, albeit very remote, with the process of the abortion industry. The crime of abortion is so monstrous that any kind of concatenation with this crime, even a very remote one, is immoral and cannot be accepted under any circumstances by a Catholic once he has become fully aware of it. One who uses these vaccines must realize that his body is benefitting from the “fruits” (although steps removed through a series of chemical processes) of one of mankind’s greatest crimes…

…More than ever, we need the spirit of the confessors and martyrs who avoided the slightest suspicion of collaboration with the evil of their own age. The Word of God says: “Be simple as children of God without reproach in the midst of a depraved and perverse generation, in which you must shine like lights in the world” (Phil. 2, 15)…”

Bishop Athanasius Schneider reiterates the position thus In a separate LSN interview, the full transcript of which can be read, or video viewed, here.

“…I repeat, it is the most anti-pastoral and counterproductive, that in this time, exactly in this historical hour, [that] Catholics will justify their use of abortion-tainted vaccines with the theory of material remote cooperation. It is so illogical – we have to recognize this in this historical hour in which we are living…”

In yet another interview with LSN, Bishop Schneider warns:

“…some bishops, even good ones, are making a huge explanation to me in a sophistic manner, of the principle of moral cooperation only, without your will, without your consent. But this is for me as sophism which cannot be applied to this concrete case, because it is evident to simple common sense that when you know this – that this vaccine is from aborted babies – then you cannot apply this moral principle, or theory, to this concrete case. And therefore we have to be very careful not to be induced into error because of this sophistic argument, even when it comes from good, traditional priests. This is the danger, and we have to resist this…”  Read the full transcript here.

Finally, in a May 8 “Appeal for the Church and the World”, signed by a number of prelates including Cardinals Gerhard Müller, Zen & Pujats, Archbishop Viganò , Bishop Schneider and other senior Churchmen as well as countless Catholic journalists, physicians, academics and associations, we find this declaration:

“… Let us also remember, as Pastors, that for Catholics it is morally unacceptable to develop or use vaccines derived from material from aborted fetuses…”  – click here to read the Appeal for the Church and the World.

Writing in reply to the aforementioned SSPX District Superior, whose identity is not important here, I upheld this authentic moral teaching of the traditional prelates and other Catholics in the following words:

“I share the view of Bishop Athanasius Schneider and the other traditional prelates in this instance, who insist that abortion is so uniquely and gravely sinful as to render the normal considerations of “necessity” and “remote material co-operation” moot. These are general moral principles that are weighed in matters pertaining to sins common to fallen human nature, not to sins that are against nature and which cry to heaven for vengeance. Hence, the “material co-operation” argument is misapplied in the case of abortion-tainted vaccines and is therefore fallacious…

…I would like to clarify that it was never my intention to contend that those who seek to benefit from these vaccines are guilty of formal co-operation in the sin of abortion itself, but rather that they are guilty of formal co-operation in the use of evil means, i.e., the immoral process of using aborted fetal cells in the production and/or testing of the vaccine. In other words, they are guilty of using an evil means in order to accomplish good–which is never allowed. I apologise if I did not make myself clear on this point in my previous communication.”

Summary

For whatever reason, whether by simple error or for reasons of avoiding direct confrontation with this vaccine-pushing Pope and his various national hierarchies, the SSPX is seriously ill-advising the faithful for the first time in the 35-years I have been associated with it.

Therefore every Catholic with a sense of the faith, whose conscience automatically balks at the suggestion that we may, in circumstances of grave necessity, do evil that good may come from it, must disregard this SSPX advice along with that of other churchmen, be they Traditional or Modernist, Pope or priest, who propose the “remote material co-operation” fallacy in the case of abortion-tainted vaccines.

We are never at liberty to benefit from an evil means, not even when our lives depend on it. This is the authentic moral teaching of the Church and the faith of the martyrs, who could so easily have burned a mere grain of incense before the pagan deities to save their lives using similar argument in their minds, but who chose instead to die a cruel death rather than offend God.

Let us consider just one example of such ardent faith – the martyrdom of the early Christian St. Sophia and her three young daughters, aged 11, 10 & 9 years.

All four steadfastly refusing before the Roman emperor Hadrian to burn incense before the goddess Artemis, Hadrian proceeded to have the children horribly tortured one after the other in full view of their mother.

At length, when the children finally succumbed to the unspeakable sufferings inflicted upon them, St. Sophia was granted leave to take them for burial, the idea of the pagan emperor being that she should live with the torment in her heart.

But Our Lord had other plans. After three days of mourning her beloved children He took her from this world to enjoy eternal beatitude in heaven.

Compare this example of great faith with that of Catholics today who advise that it is licit under certain strict circumstances to use products made from or tested with the stem cells of brutally murdered little babies. Yes, it is wholly scandalous! 



Comments by Catholic Truth blogger:

There will be people who attend SSPX churches who read this and become angry at the very idea that anyone should criticise the SSPX for just about anything. It’s an immature attitude, if not completely childish. There will be comments flowing into me by email and newcomers to the blog who will languish in the moderation file, telling me to stop attending the SSPX church if I don’t like it etc. blah blah.  Martin will, needless to say, get it in the neck as well. 

So, please be assured; we fully appreciate the SSPX clergy providing us with Mass and the Sacraments.  Just as we appreciate that the Scottish Bishops are counted among the successors of the apostles.  Doesn’t mean we cannot comment on their statements or actions as we may comment on the statements and actions of other professionals. After all, priests are the most important of all professionals.

Other professionals are limited to catering for the well-being of people in this world alone, while priests are charged with the immensely more important work of preparing souls for eternity in Heaven.

So, folks, please don’t expect replies to any emails calling us names for expressing our concerns about this matter. A measured comment – absent any nasty personal remarks – submitted for publication on our blog, is a different matter. Feel free.

[Stone]

From an SSPX parishioner/blog...

The SSPX Doubles Down on the Vaccine

Tradidi quod Accepi | January 5, 2021

For those who are not aware, Post Falls, Idaho, is home to hundreds of traditional Catholics who are generally split between Immaculate Conception church of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) and St. Joan of Arc parish of the Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP).  In my posting of 15 December (The SSPX Blinks), I pointed out that a cloud of confusion had descended upon the Catholic residents of Post Falls, due in large part to an anonymous article that was featured on the SSPX U.S. District website, sspx.org.  Though the article was pulled for “updating,” the replacement article by Fr. Arnaud Sélégny, a physician and professor at the SSPX seminary in Switzerland, only served to cause even more anguish among traditional Catholics. Consequently, citing what he noted as the “controversy surrounding the article of Fr. Sélégny,” the prior of Immaculate Conception church, Fr. Gerard Beck, disseminated an invitation by email on 30 December for a “presentation” to be given on Monday evening, 4 January, by Fr. Jonathan Loop.  Questions were solicited beforehand, as there would apparently be no Q&A period after the talk.

I should mention that in presenting Fr. Loop last evening, Fr. Beck revealed that there had been an SSPX moral theology team of doctors and priests who had consulted on this matter of the liceity of using murdered baby stem cells/DNA in testing, design, and production of vaccines.  Fr. Beck had already told both my wife and me a couple of weeks ago that he had been a part of that team, and last night he told us all that Fr. Loop had been on the team as well.  We were not told what credentials or qualities Fr. Loop possessed that won him a place on the team; however, Fr. Beck made a comment that many in the audience found humorous regarding Fr. Loop’s apparent penchant for controversy.  Perhaps Fr. Beck was referring to Fr. Loop’s bizarre sermon a few months ago when he told us that “God hates the First Amendment more than he hates abortion.”  But that is a topic for another post in the near future.

In response to Fr. Beck’s invitation for last evening’s presentation, I submitted eleven questions; but only one was addressed.  The one Fr. Loop chose to address was the one in which I asked him to comment on the following words written on 11 December by Bishop Athanasius Schneider and four other solidly Catholic prelates:

The theological principle of material cooperation is certainly valid and may be applied to a whole host of cases (e.g. in paying taxes, the use of products made from slave labor, and so on). However, this principle can hardly be applied to the case of vaccines made from fetal cell lines, because those who knowingly and voluntarily receive such vaccines enter into a kind of concatenation, albeit very remote, with the process of the abortion industry. The crime of abortion is so monstrous that any kind of concatenation with this crime, even a very remote one, is immoral and cannot be accepted under any circumstances by a Catholic once he has become fully aware of it. One who uses these vaccines must realize that his body is benefitting from the “fruits” (although steps removed through a series of chemical processes) of one of mankind’s greatest crimes.   

     

In addressing the comments of these prelates, Fr. Loop made it sound as if this were the opinion of only Bishop Schneider, never mentioning the other four prelates who co-signed.  But most conveniently for Fr. Loop’s argument, he left out the last sentence, thereby making it sound as if any “linkage,” even “a very remote one,” was being condemned by the good bishop of Kazakhstan.  Fr. Loop made much of this strawman he contrived, giving us interesting but invalid analogies of paying taxes and shopping at Costco.  He quoted from the recent article of Dr. Jeff Mirus (here), of all people, who took the prelates to task for allegedly making a whole new category of evil that did not exist previously.  We were told last evening that this is not traditional Catholic moral theology.

Never, at any time, did Fr. Loop read the last sentence of the paragraph quoted, which finishes the thought of, and provides the proper context for, the preceding statement. When read in conformity with the sentences before, the last sentence makes it quite clear that the prelates are referring to the act of people taking into their bodies the stem cells/DNA of murdered babies, not the act of paying taxes or purchasing goods from retailers who support immoral causes. The question of remote vs. proximate cooperation is not the crux of the matter, but rather whether or not the acceptance into our bodies of these ill-gotten goods is a continuing “concatenation” or participatory linkage into the heinous and unspeakable crime of abortion.

The Church does not set a “statute of limitations” on such a monstrous crime; nor has any reputable theologian ever suggested that time can decrease the severity of such a crime, especially when taking the vaccine today is not only participation in the abortion of 1973, but more proximately, a sin of benefitting from the fruits of its use in testing, design, or development of a vaccine or pharmaceutical. As one dissenting SSPX priest explained to me recently:

“It is the issue of the means that seems to be misleading everyone in this matter. Even if a vaccine was only tested with the use of aborted fetal cells/DNA from forty-seven years ago, this still constitutes an illicit cooperation in the use of an evil/immoral means as a necessary condition for its production and use.”

 

Instead, Fr. Loop concentrates on these words: “any kind of concatenation with this crime, even a very remote one, is immoral and cannot be accepted under any circumstances”. Unfortunately, in last evening’s talk, Fr. Loop never addressed the issue of benefitting from the fruits of an evil, except at one point to say that “time” was one way of cooperation becoming remote rather than proximate.  It was never made clear just how much “time” had to elapse for this to occur.

Now, those of you who know me know that during my Navy career, one of my duties was to train aircrews to understand what compliance to the U.S. military Code of Conduct entails.  I have continued this over the last two decades in my current profession.  I teach these young men and women, who will be going into harm’s way, to recognize propaganda and indoctrination, should they become captives of a group or nation hostile to the United States.  Propaganda involves using facts, half-truths, and even lies in promoting a specific agenda.  Indoctrination can be recognized by the one-sided argumentation of a presenter in using this propaganda to convince a listener that the indoctrinator is right and that the listener should come to his way of thinking. Imagine my chagrin when I realized last evening, as I sat listening to the spokesman of the SSPX, that we were being subjected to propaganda and being heavily indoctrinated.

For nearly ninety minutes, the audience of over one hundred faithful were given some limited information regarding moral theology and told just how complex and difficult moral theology can be.  “Complex” is a word Fr. Loop used a lot, to the point where a man sitting near me leaned over and whispered, “he thinks we’re stupid.” After all, reasoned Fr. Loop, if moral theologians can disagree on certain practical aspects of principles, we in the pews should not feel as if we can have all the answers on our own.  The message was clear: we are just lay people who do not possess the training to understand this very complex issue.  This is, as it turns out, the response that SSPX priests are giving to their faithful on three continents, as reported by Catholic faithful across the oceans: the laity cannot understand the “delicate” complexities of such matters. Fr. Loop presented us with analogies, principles, and arguments which, in the final analysis, resulted in this conclusion: if there is a proportionate cause, and if there is no alternative available, one may take abortion-tainted vaccines under certain circumstances.  What circumstances? Fr. Loop gave us two hypothetical examples:

—  in the situation whereby the state is threatening parents with taking their children out of the home unless the parents take an abortion-tainted vaccine, the parents may take the vaccine in question for the greater good of keeping the family intact and the children in a proper environment;

—  in the situation whereby an employer requires an employee to take an abortion-tainted vaccine as a condition of continued employment, the employee may take the vaccine rather than lose his livelihood.

In both the cases above, to be fair to Fr. Loop, it was made clear that all means should be taken to try to find an alternative to an abortion-tainted vaccine.  He also made it clear that Catholics may refuse such a vaccine.  Unfortunately, he also left the matter open to a certain amount of subjective discernment (perhaps Bergoglio-style “accompaniment”?) on the part of individuals being presented with difficult choices.  In other words, we all came away from his talk with the understanding that, given certain circumstances, it would be permissible for Catholics to agree to an abortion-tainted vaccine.  Significantly, however, Fr. Loop never told us how we were to judge if our own circumstances would allow for us to make a decision to take a vaccine with stem cells or DNA from murdered babies. 

If you are reading this and thinking that this is just one man’s opinion, you are only partially correct.  While there are SSPX priests who do dissent from this deplorable conclusion, this presentation would have had at least the tacit approval of Fr. Fullerton, U.S. District Superior of the SSPX. We were told last evening that the talk was being recorded, though furtive private recordings were taking place around me.  The official recording will be made available to Catholics everywhere.  Make no mistake: this is the “definitive” position of the SSPX, not just in the U.S. district, but world-wide.  It is shocking and indescribably disappointing. And we justifiably ask ourselves, “to whom do we turn?”  Let us find some consolation in the words of the five prelates quoted above, who reminded us:

More than ever, we need the spirit of the confessors and martyrs who avoided the slightest suspicion of collaboration with the evil of their own age. The Word of God says: “Be simple as children of God without reproach in the midst of a depraved and perverse generation, in which you must shine like lights in the world” (Phil. 2, 15).

[Emphasis in the original.]

[Stone]

From an earlier article by the same SSPX parishioner...

The SSPX Blinks

Tradidi quod Accepi | December 15, 2020

The sad article posted on the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) USA District’s website, ostensibly written by Fr. Arnaud Sélégny, in consultation with a panel of “experts,” has been like a dark cloud hanging over the community here in Post Falls. It would not be an exaggeration to say that it has caused division among the faithful, and between friends and neighbors. On Monday, 14 December 2020, my wife and I met with the local prior, who graciously consented to discuss the matter. Unfortunately, after meeting with him, it is clear that Fr. Sélégny’s opinion is the “official” SSPX position — not just of the U.S. District, but of the SSPX at large.

I should mention at the outset that my family and I have attended Holy Mass and received the Sacraments at dozens of SSPX chapels and Mass centers in the USA and Europe over the better part of four decades. I am not surprised, then, that at least a few priests I know are dissenting from the conclusions drawn in the article in question.  As a Navy man, I would not go so far as to describe the dissent as mutiny; however, very solid SSPX priests, who were ordained thirty to forty years ago, have taken exception to Fr. Sélégny’s sophistry, as can be seen at the Catholic Truth of Scotland blog. Even though this analysis was written by user “Athanasius,” the author divulged that he consulted with an SSPX priest of nearly 40 years, and included this good priest’s analysis in his article. It is a clear, well-written article; certainly worth a read. Here is the link: Warning: SSPX Shock Approval For Covid-19 Vaccine – Catholics Beware… « Catholic Truth (catholictruthblog.com)

Now, a thorough check with my copy of Fr. Dominic Prümmer’s Handbook of Moral Theology supports the analysis in the above referenced article perfectly; the same cannot be said, unfortunately, for Fr. Sélégny’s reasoning.  Articles 23, 233, and 234 thoroughly repudiate Fr. Sélégny’s premise and conclusions.

Regrettably, so many questions are raised by the sspx.org article, that I might be accused of being conspiratorial if I raised them all. Louis Verrecchio, at AKA Catholic, has an excellent critique here: SSPX: Reason for COVID Vaccine Serious Enough! | AKA Catholic

Still I think it is important to at least ask a few salient questions:

— How is it that Fr. Sélégny has arrived at different conclusions regarding vaccines using murdered baby tissue/DNA in developing, design, and testing than those of other solidly orthodox SSPX priests?

—  How is it that Fr. Iscara, (a priest I personally know and had the honor and privilege to host when we lived in Italy) could have been forming priests at the seminary for so long, apparently teaching them that this same concept of “remote material cooperation,” expressed by Fr. Sélégny regarding the issue of vaccines, was the moral theological answer, even while the SSPX USA District carried a contrary analysis by then-District Superior and physician Fr. Peter Scott, that dated from the year 2000?

— Since some of Fr. Iscara’s (and Fr. Sélégny’s) former students clearly disagree with their professors’ conclusions in this matter, how can so many traditional priests, ostensibly formed by these seminary professors in moral theology, be wrong?

— And why did the SSPX change its original position on this matter (specifically regarding the MMR vaccine) just after the Pontifical Academy for Life issued its dubious statement regarding vaccines in 2005?  Since when does the SSPX follow “Modernist Rome,” as Archbishop Lefebvre called it?


Archbishop Viganò warned us in his beautiful letter a few months ago, on the Feast of the Assumption:

When we consider the new orientation of the Pontifical Academy for Life… we cannot expect any condemnation of those who use fetal tissue from voluntarily aborted children. Its present members hope for mass vaccination and the universal brotherhood of the New World Order, contradicting previous pronouncements of the same Pontifical Academy.

Meanwhile, more recently, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, along with four other solidly Catholic prelates, wrote on 11 December 2020, that even the elect will be seduced.  They went on:

In confronting the evil of abortion, more than ever Catholics must “abstain from all appearance of evil” (1 Thess. 5:22). Bodily health is not an absolute value. Obedience to the law of God and the eternal salvation of the souls must be given primacy. Vaccines derived from the cells of cruelly murdered unborn children are clearly apocalyptic in character and may possibly foreshadow the mark of the beast (see Rev. 13:16).

We can clearly imagine Archbishop Lefebvre penning these words above.  Yet it is so difficult to believe that he would have agreed with Fr. Sélégny’s argument.  Here is what Bishop Schneider et al wrote regarding one of Fr. Sélégny’s invalid analogies (the payment of taxes):

The theological principle of material cooperation is certainly valid and may be applied to a whole host of cases (e.g. in paying taxes, the use of products made from slave labor, and so on). However, this principle can hardly be applied to the case of vaccines made from fetal cell lines, because those who knowingly and voluntarily receive such vaccines enter into a kind of concatenation, albeit very remote, with the process of the abortion industry. The crime of abortion is so monstrous that any kind of concatenation with this crime, even a very remote one, is immoral and cannot be accepted under any circumstances by a Catholic once he has become fully aware of it. One who uses these vaccines must realize that his body is benefitting from the “fruits” (although steps removed through a series of chemical processes) of one of mankind’s greatest crimes.

Furthermore, while Fr. Prümmer gives various arguments regarding payment of taxes, in his final analysis, he makes clear that payment of taxes is indeed obligatory (cf: Article 131, Handbook of Moral Theology).  Clearly, Fr. Sélégny’s list of red herrings is too numerous to give attention to each one individually; and it defies belief that someone charged with the duty of teaching SSPX seminarians can come up with such silly examples (seriously, a practicing Catholic who works in an abortion clinic and cleans up after abortions?) From what the good Bishop of Kazakhstan and his confreres wrote, it can easily be seen that Fr. Sélégny’s spurious examples are completely invalid.  Fr. Sélégny does not even delve into the great sin against justice that occurs when ill-gotten material (murdered baby tissue and DNA) is used obviously without the baby’s permission and for obscenely large profit by pharmaceutical companies and vaccine developers.  Fr. Sélégny’s moral theology is imprudent, at best, as Bishop Schneider points out:

Some churchmen in our day reassure the faithful by affirming that receiving a Covid-19 vaccine derived from the cell lines of an aborted child is morally licit if an alternative is not available. They justify their assertion on the basis of “material and remote cooperation” with evil. Such affirmations are extremely anti-pastoral and counterproductive, especially when one considers the increasingly apocalyptic character of the abortion industry, and the inhuman nature of some biomedical research and embryonic technology. Now more than ever, Catholics categorically cannot encourage and promote the sin of abortion, even in the slightest, by accepting these vaccines.

It is quite obvious that the sspx.org article — ostensibly approved by Menzingen — is a betrayal.  With the current political and hysterical climate, the far-reaching ramifications of such an assessment will be disastrous. It WILL come back to haunt us.  As sure as I sit at this computer and write these words, I know — and so do you, dear reader — that employers will mandate vaccines.  When a Catholic employee explains that he cannot receive such a vaccine, the employer will go to the Vatican and USCCB websites and perhaps even to sspx.org.  The employer will require the employee to demonstrate why his brand of Catholicism is different from what he sees online, at the Vatican’s and the American bishops’ websites, and now, regrettably, even the traditional SSPX.  What a scandal!  The words of a priest whom we are supposed to follow because he teaches moral theology at an SSPX seminary will be used to terminate the employee.  Do you think this is far-fetched, my friends?  I ask you to evaluate my words in light of the changes we have seen come so rapidly in recent months, and especially in view of what a Biden-Harris America will look like.

Moreover, the betrayal will affect familial relationships. Think of those many Catholic families whose children have fallen away from the practice of their Catholic Faith; of parents who are trying to encourage these prodigals back to the Faith. These adult children will consider parental guidance against illicit vaccines as one more “fanatical” aspect of the traditional Catholicism from which they tried to distance themselves. Truly, as St. Edmund Campion said, “the fort is betrayed by those who should have defended it.”

Since the SSPX hierarchy appears to have blinked in the face of such a grave moral crisis, thank God for Archbishop Viganò, Bishop Schneider, and the four other courageous prelates, who wrote:

More than ever, we need the spirit of the confessors and martyrs who avoided the slightest suspicion of collaboration with the evil of their own age. The Word of God says: “Be simple as children of God without reproach in the midst of a depraved and perverse generation, in which you must shine like lights in the world” (Phil. 2, 15).

Now those are the kinds of things the SSPX priests and prelates used to say to us.  These are the words that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre would use in this crisis.  The SSPX needs to immediately commission a more thorough analysis that will correct the moral theological quagmire — the confusion in the pews — that Fr. Sélégny’s article presented. 

The vaccine is here; we have no time to lose!  It is the time for virtuous choices.  Yes, now more than ever, the good priests of, inter alia, the SSPX and the FSSP, along with the faithful for whose spiritual welfare they are responsible, must step up to the line drawn in the sand and heroically say, “this we will not cross, nor from this will we retreat.”

[Stone]

As a reminder (taken from this post): 

Here is a transcription of the article by Fr. Peter Scott Fr. Hewko references in the above sermon, taken from The Angelus, June 2000 [many thanks to the member Deus Vult for providing us with this resource!]:


Question:
Is it licit to allow one's children to be vaccinated for rubella with vaccine manufactured with the help of fetal cells from aborted babies?

Answer:
There is no doubt that it is illicit to prepare vaccinations by the use of cell cultures from aborted babies.  It certainly is a very troublesome situation if the only way of obtaining such necessary vaccines is from cultures prepared from the by-products of abortions.
The question here is whether or not it is permissible to use such vaccines if they are the only ones that are readily available.   Can the principles of double effect be applied, that is when only a good effect is directly willed, and a bad effect is simply permitted, but not directly willed in itself?  The good effect in this case is the immunization against the infectious disease.  The bad effect is the abortion, the killing of the innocent.  It is never permitted to do something evil in order that a good can come of it, that it, it is never permitted for the good effect to come from the bad effect.  However it is possible to permit an evil, that is not directly willed in itself, and this is called the indirect voluntary.

Here one could argue that the person who seeks the vaccination does not will the abortion, but simply uses the cells that are obtained as a consequence .   However, the vaccine is not just an indirect effect of the abortion.   There is in fact a direct line of causality, from the abortion, to the available fetal cells to the development of the vaccine, to the immunization.  Therefore, the immunization is a direct consequence of the abortion, and not just an indirect effect.  Consequently, it would be immoral to use a vaccine that one knew was developed in fetal cells, not matter how great the advantage to be procured.

Moreover, even if it were to be admitted that the vaccination is not a direct consequence of the abortion, for the abortion is not performed directly in order to obtain fetal cells, and those who use them might claim, as for themselves, that they do not directly will the abortion in itself, the Catholic sense tells the faithful that they can never use the by-products of abortions for any reason at all, for by so doing they promote the mass murder of the innocent which is destroying modern society and all sense of morality.  There must always be a proportionate reason to use the indirect voluntary, that is to permit something evil which is not directly willed.  Here the reasonable gain obtained by the use of the double effect (if it truly were indirectly willed only, which it is not) would not in any way be proportionate to the horrible evil of abortion and the scandal would be immense.

If  a parent is not aware of the fact that fetal cells are being used in the culture of the vaccines that he or she is giving to his/her children, then clearly there is no moral fault involved. However, if he/she is aware of this, then he/she is morally obliged to refuse such vaccinations on principle, until such time as they can be obtained from cultures which are morally licit. Furthermore, if civil law should make such vaccinations obligatory (e.g., for attendance at school), then the parent would be obliged to object in conscience to such immoral means of vaccinating their children.

Moreover, it is not permissible to remain in willful ignorance on such a question. If there is a positive reason to suspect that fetal cells are indeed involved in the production of the vaccine, then a person is morally obliged to clarify the matter, and find out if this is indeed true or not.