The SSPX has endorsed the position of Fr. Arnaud Selegny (a priest of the French District), which is available here:
https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/it-morally-permissible-use-covid-19-vaccine-62290 Essentially, his argument boils down to this excerpt:
"But what if, in a particular case, a person finds it necessary to be vaccinated and is unable to obtain a "licit" vaccine, having only an "illicit" vaccine available? This may occur for health reasons (vulnerable elderly person), or because of the professional situation (exposed medical personnel) or for professional reasons, such as traveling by plane. There is already at least one airline – Qantas in this case – which has warned that, as soon as vaccines are available, it will require vaccination to accept a passenger. It is very likely that this requirement will be quickly taken up by many airlines. As cooperation is only distant, and the reason given is serious enough, it is possible in these cases to use such a vaccine."
In other words, they say that so long as there is
grave necessity, and
proportionality between the evil to be committed and the good to be attained, the jab is licit.
Those who oppose this position counter with one (or more) of three main arguments:
1)
It is never licit, under any circuмstances, to accept an abortion jab. Those who hold this position would include Cardinal Burke, Archbishop Vigano, all four of the Resistance bishops, all the main sedevacantist bishops, many priests within the SSPX itself, the entire SSPX before the non-authoritative Vatican docuмent, and many lesser known conciliar bishops (e.g., Bishop Strickland of Texas).
Some reasons advanced by those taking this position include the following:
A) The 2005 docuмent is based upon a mistake of fact (i.e., that the vaccines are developed form material taken from an aborted baby decades ago), whereas in fact, periodical abortions are necessary to produce the numbers of vaccines in demand and over time. Therefore the cooperation in evil is not remote, but present and ongoing.
The rebuttal to this position is that the "remoteness" under consideration here is
not temporal, but causal (i.e., not how recent or distant the abortion was in time, but how many "steps" exist between the murder and the injection).
B) The counter-rebuttal then becomes: The line of causation is continuous and uninterrupted (i.e., the cooperation in evil is not remote material, but formal, which is never permitted).
C) Still another couner-rebuttal is, if ongoing abortions are necessary to meet demand, then receiving the jab is promoting the practice of abortion, trafficking in baby parts, and the entire.
2)
Supposing for the sake of argument, that necessity and proportionality could make the use of abortion jabs permissible, nevertheless, those conditions are still not present: The examples of causes adduced by Fr. Selegny (e.g., threat of job loss; inability to board a plane; underlying medical condition; danger of death; etc.) all seem to fall short on both counts.
As regards proportionality between the evil cooperated in, and the good to be attained, most people recognize that only blood is proportionate to blood (i.e., only death is proportionate to death). Already we can eliminate, therefore, job losss and boarding airplanes as goods proportionate to abortion/murder. As regards underlying medical conditions, this is propaganda: Those with underlying medical conditions are MORE likely to suffer serious adverse effects from the jab than they would from the virus (and it has also been noted that the age group most vulnerable to mortality is also well past the average human lifespan anyway), and across the population at large, even if one accepts the doctored mortality numbers, there still is only a o.o3% chance of death (much lowerstill if one eliminated the fake cause of death hospitals are incentivized to report).
At best, you could say that, for 99.9% of the human population, proportionality and necessity would not be present, and therefore the liceity of the jab would be purely theoretical (just as in the case of the MMR vaccine, for which CDC numbers indicated only 10 deaths out of 3.5 million births in 2019). Clearly there is no necessity.
3) Other objections to the liceity of the abortion jab pertain to moral preclusions deriviative of abortion, such as unjust possession of stolen property (i.e., the cells themselves), unjust enrichment, and desecration of human remains.
4) Scandal has also been noted by some (i.e., Even if the moral arguments in favor of abortion jabs could objectively be justified according to moral theology, still, the world will not understand, and te mission of the Church will be adversely impacted by the suspicion of hypocrisy). Proof of this consideration is made obvious, simply by observing the disagreement among Church prelates on the subject. If even they can't come to agreement, how are casual non-Catholics going to note the subtle justifications which save the Church from the appearance of self-serving hypcrisy?
In the final analysis, taking the jab is against the common good (despite the Satanic propaganda which says that you should take the jab to protect the common good), even if, per argumentum, one could justify it morally.
Had Catholics held strong in the 1990's against the alleged liceity of the MMR shot, we would not in 2021 be speaking of the alleged liceity of the abortion COVID jab, and perhaps the alchemists and sorcerers (i.e., pharmakeus is the Greek work for sorcerer)would have offered a non-abortive option for people who have mistakenly bought into the need for a "vaccine."
The only way to end the antichrist control big pharma exerts over society, and its dependence upon the murder of innocent babies, is to categorically reject, under any circuмstance, to take their death serum.
As Bishops Vigano, Strickland, and Schneider have noted, we may be put to the test, and asked to testify to our faith with our blood, as so many previous generations of Catholics have had to do.
Topic: Official position of the FSSPX on the 'Vaccine'? (Read 2692 times)