Here's the original link to the retraction:
https://mitteilungsblatt-a.fsspx.online/mb-juni-2021-osterreich/a-editorial Here's the DeepL.com translation (emphases mine - SJ):
Since the two articles in the April issue of the Austrian newsletter have given rise to
misunderstandings, I would like to provide some
clarifications in the following, which - I hope - will be helpful to deepen the whole issue of the CÖVÌD ναccιnє and to
create greater clarity. This is about the moral value of ναccιnєs that are tainted by abortion, i.e. for the research of which embryonic cell lines were used that originate from aborted children. Unfortunately, there is currently no CÖVÌD ναccιnє available in this country that would be ethically safe, even if such a ναccιnє is in prospect.
More and more pressure is being put on the population to be ναccιnαted, until perhaps one day there will be compulsory vaccination, which already exists in other countries such as Italy for certain professional groups. How should we behave as convinced Catholics? Can an
ethically questionable vaccination be allowed, and if so, under what conditions? Father Arnaud Sélégny, communications director of the General House of the FSSPX, explored these questions in great detail in his December 4, 2020 article, "Is the CÖVÌD-19 ναccιnє morally safe? "1
Another fruitful source of information can be found in solid official Vatican docuмents that take positions and give directives on the vaccination issue and other bio-ethical questions. In connection with the traditional principles of moral theology, I would like to make the application to our subject matter
in a generally understandable way. In order for an ethically questionable ναccιnє to be used, the following four criteria must be met:
1. the sufficiently serious reason: there must be a clear emergency, such as a serious threat to life, personal, professional or family situation. For example, if one is forced to be ναccιnαted without being able to defend oneself, or if there is a "high risk to health" with expected serious consequences that can only be averted by vaccination, then this reason is given.2
A concrete example is the rubella vaccination in Germany, where vaccination is compulsory, confronting our schools and old people's homes in particular with inescapable difficulties. If the priestly fraternity refused to accept the abortion-stained vaccination, it would have to close all its schools and old people's homes. - There is a clear compulsion that cannot be resisted. That is why vaccination is allowed.
Therefore, if there is a real and effective serious threat to one's life, personal, professional or family situation, one can accept vaccination with the substances currently in use without morally failing.
2. the lack of alternative: this is given if no other way can be found to avert the above-mentioned threat than vaccination. For example, if there were an ethically sound rubella ναccιnє, one would be obligated to use it. (There would indeed be a Japanese one, but it is not licensed in Germany). Here, then, the situation is without alternative.
To fight corona disease, morally harmless so-called dead ναccιnєs will be available in the foreseeable future, but whether they will be approved in our countries is not yet foreseeable.3 Thus, the currently used ναccιnєs are without alternative for the individual citizen, who may therefore use them - but only under the serious circuмstances mentioned. It should also be noted that a number of treatments have been used to treat CÖVÌD sufferers with apparently surprising success. Anyone wishing to be ναccιnαted for health reasons should check in advance and obtain information as to whether such an alternative therapy might not be an option.
3. proportionality: the benefit of vaccination must be greater than the expected harm of non-vaccination. If the benefit is uncertain, or the risk of vaccination is greater than the risk of the disease, it is not permissible to be ναccιnαted for health reasons.3
4 The obligation to protest against abortion-induced vaccination research: one must resist the use of these ναccιnєs as best one can. Even those who are forced to be ναccιnαted should clearly express their protest. Furthermore, one should - as far as possible - vigorously call upon the responsible circles to develop ethically sound methods of treatment or to commit themselves to them. The declaration of the Pontifical Academy for Life of June 5, 2005, speaks an unmistakable language in this regard.4
Conclusion:
In order to act conscientiously before God and one's fellow man, one is required to strive to make a wise judgment based on these criteria. It must be admitted that this is not easy in every case, since there is contradictory and confusing information on the subject, experts often disagree, for example, on the risk-benefit analysis, and therefore it is inevitable that one may come to different conclusions. Therefore, beware of trying to impose one's own opinion on others without respect. However, everyone is obliged to inform themselves to the best of their knowledge and belief and then make a responsible decision.
In this difficult time, let us take trusting refuge in the Sacred Heart of Jesus. His unbreakable promises fill us with comfort and confidence. From Him we draw light and tranquility, strength and courage, so that we may prove ourselves in the present trial and one day merit the eternal reward for our spotless fidelity.
With priestly blessings,
Fr. Stefan Frey
Topic: SSPX District of Austria Prohibits “ναccιnє” (Read 3742 times)