CathInfo.com

I probably need to get my eyes checked, I've skimmed the article and can't find where it says he is a Dominican.

Nice catch!

The original LSN article now just says “αnσnymσus priest.”

I think it used to say “αnσnymσus Dominican priest.”

But how it got changed on CI is anyone’s guess.  Maybe LSN  emailed Matthew?

Or did we all hallucinate it?

But the article doesn’t say what you want it to. It doesn’t say under no circuмstances can the vaccine be taken, only that the conditions, in the author’s opinion, have not been met.
 
There are two conditions required for licit material cooperation: the object or action must be good (or at least indifferent) and there must be a grave reason for the cooperation. The other two conditions concerning cooperation in evil can be ignored (viz. the cooperator doesn’t intend the evil and the cooperator isn’t the cause of the evil) since if either were not verified the cooperation would be formal, not material.
 
The object must be good in absolute terms; it is a moral good. To think only in physical terms one would only see the evil. For example, to kill is evil, but it can be morally good (in self defense) or morally bad (in robbery). To take a vaccine, then, is morally good (or at least indifferent).
 
The only condition remaining is a sufficient reason. McHugh & Callan (Moral Theology) give this explanation, “A very grave reason for cooperation is the gain or retention of a very great good or the avoidance of a very great evil. A notable percentage of the goods of one's station in life should be considered as a very great good. A severe and long-continued illness, unemployment on the part of the bread-earner of a needy family, serious detriment to one's honor, reputation or peace of mind, etc., are examples of very great evils.”
 
So, a fear of loss of employment would be sufficient reason to take the vaccine.

Neither does it say what your bosses want it to say:

That if these conditions are present, taking the abortion jab is licit.

He’s just saying that even if that principle held, the conditions for liceity in the case of COVID19/COVID19 vax have not been met.

Consequently, what would happen if those circuмstances were met is moot/academic.

All that matters in concreto, is that here and now, the Vatican’s docuмents/conditions (which the Society claims to rely upon) have not been satisfied, and consequently, the Society should not be telling people it is licit.

As for McHugh/Callan, they are irrelevant: They can think and say whatever they want, but they are outranked by the CDF (ratified by the Popes), who specified the criteria to be satisfied, and job loss is not among them.

No, if you read the article dispassionately it clearly does agree with the SSPX position.

I think your agenda has gotten the better of your critical thinking skills:

The priest says that 3 of the 4 criteria laid out by the CDF have not been met, and therefore recourse to the vax is gravely illicit.

The SSPX -and quite naturally yourself on their behest- wish to interject different (and fewer) criteria, so as to show them satisfied, and falsely conclude the vax is licit.

Consequently, it is not the priest who ought to be suspected of deception, but yourself:

If the SSPX is saying they accept the Vatican criteria for the (alleged) liceity of taking abortion jabs, then the criteria which must be met (as specified in the article) are:

-There is no available morally untainted therapeutic intervention that neutralizes the proposed health threat. (Fail)

-There must exist a proportionate cause for using an abortion tainted therapeutic intervention based on the risks involved. (Fail)

-There must exist an actual grave threat to your health or that of others if you were to refrain from taking the proposed abortion tainted therapeutic intervention. (Fail)

-One must oppose the abortion taintedness of the therapeutic intervention.

This nonsense you suggest about leaving aside the 2008 CDF docuмent Dignitas Personae, in favor of the earlier (and superceded) 2005 PAFL non-magisterial, advisory-only docuмent, as alluded to earlier, is only because the latter (superceded) docuмent is more ambiguous and has fewer criteria, whereas the former is magisterial and specific.

No, I don't think I'll let you escape, broaden, or otherwise disqualify the 2008 criteria.

You can come up with all the non-magisterial, fallacious, sophistic distinctions you desire, but none of them will be able to overcome the 2008 docuмent: You don't get to replace those criteria just because they rebut Menzingen. 

The death jabs do not meet the Vatican's criteria (regardless of whether or not they meet yours), and therefore the jab remains today in all cases morally gravely illicit.