Interestingly, that is where Fr. Juergen was transferred (but I believe he was already gone in August before the US District/Menzingen supported the use of the abortive COVID19 “vaccines,” though it was during his reign that they accepted the use of the pointless abortive MMR vaccine).

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

All the high-IQ, well trained priests in the SSPX aren't suddenly going to suffer brain damage, just because the organization as a whole (and from the top-down) becomes a carbon copy of the FSSP in its position on the Crisis, attitudes, rules, procedures, etc. Just because the SSPX starts defending Vatican II and the Conciliar Church, and starts working closely with representatives (priests, bishops) of said counterfeit church and seeks permission/approval from it, doesn't cause all the priests in the SSPX to have their IQs drop to the sub-80 range.

Expect the SSPX as a whole to continue to sink, year by year. Expect SSPX priests to "wow you" once in a while. FSSP priests do the same. It has no bearing whatsoever on the overall goodness or badness of the organization they represent.

Transferred to Uganda in ... 3 ... 2 ... 1

With the statement from Fr. Burfitt as well as this, could there be an "Uh oh, we're losing too many people to the Resistance and Sedes"?

Hardly any problem is currently burdening Christians and righteous people in general more than the question of the moral and medical value of the mass-CÖVÌD vaccination, whose operators and proponents pursue the declared aim to "ναccιnαte the whole of humanity" and do not shy away from direct or indirect coercion. If we look to Pope Francis or high-ranking prelates such as Archbishop Lackner, the president of the Austrian Bishops' Conference, we Catholics would have an ethical obligation to be ναccιnαted.

On the other hand, there are countless experts in all kinds of fields who warn very strongly against vaccination.  Who should we believe? How can the individual in his or her specific situation make a wise, ethically justifiable decision?

Without being able to identify myself as a medical specialist, the task of pointing out the moral implications of vaccination  and giving the faithful as clear an orientation as possible is incuмbent upon us priests. In order to shed sufficient light on this complex question, we have worked closely with physicians, who, for their part, devoted weeks of intensive research. It should be noted at the outset: Most physicians are hardly informed about the more detailed interrelationships in the research and development of ναccιnєs and other drugs. Too much of what the pharmaceutical industry [does] is done in the darkness of secrecy and cover-up. It apparently takes the scandals to shed some light into the gruesome business of these people, such as the one a few years ago about organ trafficking by Planned Parenthood, the world's largest abortion provider. The group trafficked organs of aborted children to pharmaceutical companies on a massive scale.  In order to make a moral evaluation of the CÖVÌD vaccination, at least the following problem areas must be illuminated problem areas must be illuminated:

The origin of the ναccιnєs:
It is known that the research and development of current ναccιnєs have used embryonic cell lines derived from abortions allegedly performed decades in the past. This fact may not be too alarming. But if one knows about the more detailed background, namely that for the utilization of the developed organs of an embryo, the small child is taken alive out of the mother's womb, "slaughtered" alive and "disemboweled", so that the still living organs can be [harvested], and that this has systematically happened countless times and continues to happen, then the thing looks different. These facts, published several times in the past, could be dismissed as baseless allegations by cօռspιʀαcʏ theorists. Therefore it was necessary to substantiate this information by irrefutable evidence and proofs. Dr. Eva Maria Hobiger deserves the credit for having done this work, which is docuмented in the following article. Anyone who is ναccιnαted must be aware that she - willingly or forced - is co-financing and supporting the despicable maƈhınątions of an unscrupulous pharmaceutical industry and supports [it].

The risk assessment:
More and more reports are coming in of serious side effects and already numerous deaths after receiving the CÖVÌD ναccιnє. How dangerous are these vaccinations? No one can answer this question. Permanent damage, possibly even even hereditary, cannot be ruled out. No one knows whether mass vaccination will not lead to a humanitarian catastrophe of global catastrophe. Dr. NormanZeelan a renowned specialist in this field and investigator in Germany, points out these dangers:

"It is indisputable that even the development and testing of an actual vaccination takes about 10 to 20 years. This time span can only be shortened, if one is in possession of a time machine ... There has never been a vaccination whose development and long-term observation [took] less than 4 to 5 years and did not end in a catastrophe. There should be billions of young, healthy people to a human experimentation with incalculable consequences, whereby it has not yet been [known] precisely what the benefit for themselves and others should consist at all."
Is it permissible to endanger one's own health and perhaps those of one's offspring to such serious risks- with no real discernible benefit? Doesn't the healthy human sensibility vehemently oppose this?

Proportionality:
A year ago, we were confronted with the horror of a severe pandemic, comparable with the Spanish flu, which killed 50 to 100 million people in Europe. In the meantime, the [sic] long since given the all-clear. The figures from the Federal statistics for the year 2020 do not show mortality that exceeds that of previous years, but the disease is dangerous: the disease - like any average flu epidemic - is almost exclusively dangerous for the over-80 age group. How can such justify such serious measures and and risks to which the population is continuously exposed?

In whose service is the vaccination?
Unfortunately, the evidence is mounting that the global vaccination campaign is in the service of a political agenda to bring humanity a nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr, a socialist-style dictatorship that will take away privacy and freedom, but bring "equality and justice," "peace," and "security," as all dictatorships have said. Are we allowed to simply submit to such inhuman, anti-Christian ideas without without offering resistance?

Conclusion and outlook:
If the four problem areas mentioned above also need to be to be deepened, I think we cannot avoid warning against the moral dubiousness of the current CÖVÌD vaccination and to urgently warn against undergoing the vaccination. I know that many are under severe vaccination pressures.

But it is always permissible to appeal to one's conscience and try to delay until one of the announced ναccιnєs are offered, which are based on based on proven conventional development methods and are are morally safe.

God's providence allows us to live in these difficult times. The all-knowing and all-good One knows what he may expect of us. In extraordinary trials, He offers us extraordinary graces so that we may prove ourselves. He wants us to live completely in union with our most gracious Savior and the mysteries of His Passion and Resurrection. May He grant you all perseverance, courage to resist and to suffer, but also with the unshakable joy of His holy Resurrection.

If the Most Blessed Virgin at Fatima predicted the worldwide spread of lҽϝƚιsƚ ideology, she also foretold Her final victory over them. Let us ask Mary for her guidance, for light and strength. In this spirit I wish you a blessed Holy Week and a joyful and grace-filled Easter.

-Fr. Stefan Frey

With the statement from Fr. Burfitt as well as this, could there be an "Uh oh, we're losing too many people to the Resistance and Sedes"?

That's certainly not the case for our district superior. Fr. Frey is gifted with common sense and he is supported by a confrere in the district, who profundly studies all the topics regarding the pseudo-pandemic and the "Great Reset".

I should also note, that at the same time the neighboring district of Germany published a text, with nearly the opposit content than Fr. Frey's article.

The reason for this difference can be reduced to two problems: lack of discrete thinking (inability/unwillingness to grasp the underlying problems of the whole transformation process) and fear of state sanctions (that could push the SSPX back in to the underground).

That's certainly not the case for our district superior. Fr. Frey is gifted with common sense and he is supported by a confrere in the district, who profundly studies all the topics regarding the pseudo-pandemic and the "Great Reset".

I should also note, that at the same time the neighboring district of Germany published a text, with nearly the opposit content than Fr. Frey's article.

The reason for this difference can be reduced to two problems: lack of discrete thinking (inability/unwillingness to grasp the underlying problems of the whole transformation process) and fear of state sanctions (that could push the SSPX back in to the underground).

What I don't like about the highlighted words above, is that it seems to suggest that where there is state/political pressure, the CÖVÌD jab becomes morally permissible for the SSPX.

This in turn would seem to suggest that political considerations are guiding the SSPX's position, rather than moral principles.

Now, I don't know whether this is in fact actually the case or not (and I would certainly hope/expect it weren't so).  I'm just saying it is what Against the Heresies' post is suggesting, and that is a serious allegation.

What I don't like about the highlighted words above, is that it seems to suggest that where there is state/political pressure, the CÖVÌD jab becomes morally permissible for the SSPX.

This in turn would seem to suggest that political considerations are guiding the SSPX's position, rather than moral principles.

The whole orientation of the SSPX, made for example by Msgr. Fellay, Fr. N. Pfluger (i.a. former German district superior) and Fr. Wegner, is based on politics and not on moral principles. One wants to please Rome and the world. One wants to be accepted. One does not want to appear as weird, crazy or extreme. That is e.g. why (and not for moral reasons or principles) the SSPX distances itself from “crazies” like Msgr. Williamson and the followers of the Resistance.

And this is also true of various issues surrounding Cövíd. One accepts the state measures and guidelines and on the other hand takes action against “extremists” on the question of masks or vaccínatíons. One does not want to annoy someone. Moral questions are reduced to mere questions of individual prudence and, if necessary, one hides behind Vatican orientations. There is no theological in-depth analysis of the interrelationships behind this pseudo pandεmíc.

By the way, the public establishment of schools, the licensing of associations, the presence in the social media,... exist in the godless society only if one follows the rules of the game. Those who want to be uncompromisingly Catholic must expect opposition, problems or even the underground. After 50 years of grueling struggle against the Church of Vat II and the anti-Christian state, some people show signs of wear and tear and succuмb to misconceptions. Unfortunately.

(My considerations relate primarily to the situation in the German District.)