There was scandal last year when Fr. Richard Boyle (prior, Syracuse) published the following Mater Dei Academy Handbook, which included this official policy regarding the SSPX's submission to communist state requirements:

"Vaccinations In New York, state law requires that children enrolled in a school be immunized against certain diseases. Parents must therefore submit a pupil immunization record upon enrollment, and provide updates as required. If you do not immunize your child(ren) or if you have refused any of the New York State required immunizations, enrollment will not be permitted. Any further detail on the vaccinations required by New York State is available from the school main office upon request. SSPX Statement on Vaccination Schools of the US District of the Society of Saint Pius X comply with vaccination policies of local health and education authorities while adhering to moral principles of the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Church does not oppose vaccinations in principle, but it does consider as morally illicit the development of vaccines from aborted fetal tissues. In 2005, the [heretical modernist] Vatican clarified the proper position of all Catholics on this matter, and the SSPX adheres to that declaration. Schools of the SSPX also support parental authority and freedom of choice, in matters not opposed to the moral law. If the state law does not mandate vaccination, neither do our schools. In the event of an outbreak of an infectious disease, our schools work closely with local and state officials to respond according to the guidelines prescribed by the governing authorities.1"
https://syracuse-a.prod.sspx.org/sites/sspx/files/media/mater_dei_parent_student_handbook_sept_25.pdf

A reported 50% of parents pulled their children from the school, rather than endanger them (or consent to the at-least questionable moral ruling of the modernist Vatican declaration, which bases itself upon condemned proportionalism to arrive at its conclusion regarding the liceity of receiving vaccines derived from aborted fetal matter).

Fr. Boyle was rewarded by being placed in charge of all SSPX schools.

Consequently, and in light of the excerpt above detailing the SSPX rationale for complying with New York state law, it is entirely reasonable to expect similar policies to be implemented in all SSPX schools.  Moreover, with the COVID19 hoax designed (among other reasons) to create a climate for justifying mandatory vaccination, it is likely policies similar to those in New York will eventually spread everywhere.

This means it is very likely that SSPX parents will now/eventually be coaxed by their SSPX priests into endanger their children by poisoning them in turn for a school education (in addition to having to wrestle with the questionable moral justification given by the modernist Vatican for doing so).

Masks, quarantines, social distancing, vaccinations, church closures, etc.

The SSPX seems to be going along with it all, just as their Americanist predecessors did so 125 years earlier.

PS: As of 12/2019, non-abortive MMR vaccines were no longer available in America, so even if you were willing to destroy your child's immune system, and incur a 54% change of developing a chronic illness, you would still have to wrestle with the moral issue...unless you take solace in the 2005 Vatican paper (released just a couple months after the death of JPII, who condemned the very proportionalism which comprises the justification of that docuмent).

Compare the SSPX/modernist position with that of Viganò, three cardinals, and 8 bishops:

“Let us also remember, as Pastors, that for Catholics it is morally unacceptable to develop or use vaccines derived from material from aborted fetuses.”
https://veritasliberabitvos.info/appeal/

Yet more twisted words from you.

Here’s the 2005 study:
https://www.immunize.org/talking-about-vaccines/vaticandocuмent.htm

To summarize, it must be confirmed that:

there is a grave responsibility to use alternative vaccines and to make a conscientious objection with regard to those which have moral problems;

as regards the vaccines without an alternative, the need to contest so that others may be prepared must be reaffirmed, as should be the lawfulness of using the former in the meantime insomuch as is necessary in order to avoid a serious risk not only for one's own children but also, and perhaps more specifically, for the health conditions of the population as a whole - especially for pregnant women;

the lawfulness of the use of these vaccines should not be misinterpreted as a declaration of the lawfulness of their production, marketing and use, but is to be understood as being a passive material cooperation and, in its mildest and remotest sense, also active, morally justified as an extrema ratio due to the necessity to provide for the good of one's children and of the people who come in contact with the children (pregnant women);

such cooperation occurs in a context of moral coercion of the conscience of parents, who are forced to choose to act against their conscience or otherwise, to put the health of their children and of the population as a whole at risk. This is an unjust alternative choice, which must be eliminated as soon as possible.


So, contrary to what you claim, the study (SSPX) assert the same principle  as Viganò et al. I have never seen you quote a single source honestly. You’re a total fraud.


https://web.archive.org/web/20200619131240/https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/sspx-schools-accepting-mandatory-vaccination/

Lol!!

If the 2005 study (which based itself on the condemned moral principle of “proportionalism;” condemned by the same pope who died 1.5 months before this statement came out!) and the position of Vigano are identical, then let the SSPX school handbooks which declare they will comply with state vaccination requirements replace that verbiage with Vigano’s statement above (which says it is morally unacceptable to use them)!

What a joke!

What a liar!

Don’t feed the troll!

He’s desperate: After a whole day of being refuted by everyone who engaged him yesterday, he’s got to redeem himself to his handlers today.

But every additional post makes the SSPX sink a bit lower.

Its not a contradiction. As a principle both the “Appeal” and the SSPX article by Fr. Scott concur. But, the Appeal doesn’t address the specific circuмstances when no alternative is available or when it’s obligatory.

Vigano: “Morally unacceptable to use them.”  No mention of mitigating circuмstances.

Already rallying SSPX and modernist Vatican: If no alternative is available (“proportionalism “), you can use them.

Maybe in certain circuмstances the SSPX can allow abortions and gαy marriage too?  

How can an intrinsically evil act (abortion) which is ALWAYS unacceptable, even to save the life of a mother, be allowed to POSSIBLY save SOMEONE from a DISEASE just because the intrinsically evil act is somewhat remote? How remote is it really, when the product you are using is directly derived from an intrinsically evil act? And some in the medical community have said that trace amounts of aborted fetal tissue are even injected into the recipient...

It’s not proportionalism. It’s the doctrine of double effect as the article makes clear, but you either don’t have the nous to comprehend it or just using it to smear the SSPX.

(BTW, no objection from Bp. W. on Fr. Scott’s article...)

BS.

The 2005 Vatican docuмent itself acknowledges its justification is based upon (condemned) proportionalism:

"As regards the diseases against which there are no alternative vaccines which are available and ethically acceptable, it is right to abstain from using these vaccines if it can be done without causing children, and indirectly the population as a whole, to undergo significant risks to their health. However, if the latter are exposed to considerable dangers to their health, vaccines with moral problems pertaining to them may also be used on a temporary basis. The moral reason is that the duty to avoid passive material cooperation is not obligatory if there is grave inconvenience. Moreover, we find, in such a case, a proportional reason, in order to accept the use of these vaccines in the presence of the danger of favouring the spread of the pathological agent, due to the lack of vaccination of children."
https://www.immunize.org/talking-about-vaccines/vaticandocuмent.htm

Here is what Veritatis Splendor had to say on this method of determining morality:

"According to these theories, free will would neither be morally subjected to specific obligations nor shaped by its choices, while nonetheless still remaining responsible for its own acts and for their consequences. This "teleologism", as a method for discovering the moral norm, can thus be called — according to terminology and approaches imported from different currents of thought — "consequentialism" or "proportionalism". The former claims to draw the criteria of the rightness of a given way of acting solely from a calculation of foreseeable consequences deriving from a given choice. The latter, by weighing the various values and goods being sought, focuses rather on the proportion acknowledged between the good and bad effects of that choice, with a view to the "greater good" or "lesser evil" actually possible in a particular situation...76. These theories can gain a certain persuasive force from their affinity to the scientific mentality, which is rightly concerned with ordering technical and economic activities on the basis of a calculation of resources and profits, procedures and their effects. They seek to provide liberation from the constraints of a voluntaristic and arbitrary morality of obligation which would ultimately be dehumanizing.
Such theories however are not faithful to the Church's teaching, when they believe they can justify, as morally good, deliberate choices of kinds of behaviour contrary to the commandments of the divine and natural law."
http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor.html

JPII died, and less than 2 months later, the Vatican came out with its statement, which completely rolls over JPII's teaching (which in this particular instance was correct teaching), to arrive at its NEW position.  

Francis would later take the baton from BXVI and arrive at this scandalous statement (the revolution always evolves into ever-greater depravity): https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2019/03/vaticans-academy-for-life-encourages-parents-to-vaccinate-children/

Regarding +BW: What do you expect?  He was an SSPXer!

That's like saying it's OK to drink the blood of children after they have been killed because you didn't participate in killing them.

Yeah, or eating from a pagan sacrifice just because you didn't offer it. Yet this too has been condemned from the very beginning.

Ironically, many believe that abortions are actually demonic sacrifices.

Even if it could be proved that a particular vaccine used no aborted fetal cells, I would still be against the Church joining the State in requiring universal vaccinations.  There are too many contradictions, and it is a horrible policy, from a variety of perspectives having to do with prudent and just governmental policy.

The Vatican II church is a counterfeit NWO controlled church, so it should not surprise anyone that they join into all vaccinations. By their deeds you shall know them.