CathInfo.com

Dear Shill-

I apologize for not responding to you sooner, but I wanted to give people a chance to see what kind of an obsessive lunatic you are before responding.  I think you have painted that picture rather nicely (4 banned accounts in 12 hours; dozens of banned accounts over the years; gratuitously speculating on why I withheld my position paper on ναccιnєs...wrongly, as though you knew something you didn't; etc.).

Before explaining why I withheld my position paper on a difficult subject, I would simply note that the SSPX theological position you consider so airtight seems not to be shared by many even within the SSPX: Fr. Peter Lang, Fr. Byrne, Fr. Burfitt, Fr. Webber, Fr. Robinson and others (these just the English speakers I am aware of) have all dissented from the official SSPX position to one degree or another.

But as to your question: Why did I withhold my paper?

Shortly after I announced my intention, I was contacted by a Resistance priest who had been following the CI discussion at that time, and asked me not to publish it.  He told me that a group of priests was studying the issue, and this led me to believe they would come out with a position paper.  Therefore, I deferred.

This same priest also made several objections to a draft of my paper (some of which were convincing, and some which were not).

Therefore, I decided to send my draft to this group of priests, and received a promise of a future response, which did not come for two months.

When the response came, it gave several reasons why the CÖVÌD19 ναccιnє should not be taken (including and beyond the issue of abortion), stated that the bishops should condemn the ναccιnє whether abortive cells were used in the testing OR in the manufacturing stage, but also noted there were difficult questions  and implications for the apostolate if the shot could not be taken, and therefore concluded the matter required further study.

Meanwhile, the opposition to the jab amongst trads began to strike me as so prevalent, that there wasn't much point in preaching to the choir.

So, given the difficulty of the subject matter and not wanting to err; given the fact that priests are divided on the matter; and given the fact that most trads already oppose the jab, it seemed prudent not to attempt the project I initially intended after all.

This brings us to your last question: What is my position?

1) Regarding the value of the "remote material cooperation" argument, which purports to find the CÖVÌD19 jab morally permissible if proportionality and necessity are present (i.e., the Fr. Selegny criteria which Menzingen has endorsed), I am undecided, and reserve the right to further study and reflection.

2) Supposing the principle expounded in #1 were conceded, for the sake of argument, nevertheless, I do not think such proportionality and necessity exist.

Consequently, my position in #2 makes the question in #1 moot.

In a follow-up post, I will give my reasons why I do not think necessity or proportionality exist with regard to the CÖVÌD19 jab.

Note that my response will center only upon the abortion issue, and leave aside other reasons why the CÖVÌD19 jab might not be morally permissible (e.g., the morality of human experimentation; scandal; political; etc.).