The SSPX Doubles Down on the Vaccine

          For those who are not aware, Post Falls, Idaho, is home to hundreds of traditional Catholics who are generally split between Immaculate Conception church of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) and St. Joan of Arc parish of the Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP).  In my posting of 15 December (The SSPX Blinks), I pointed out that a cloud of confusion had descended upon the Catholic residents of Post Falls, due in large part to an anonymous article that was featured on the SSPX U.S. District website,  Though the article was pulled for “updating,” the replacement article by Fr. Arnaud Sélégny, a physician and professor at the SSPX seminary in Switzerland, only served to cause even more anguish among traditional Catholics. Consequently, citing what he noted as the “controversy surrounding the article of Fr. Sélégny,” the prior of Immaculate Conception church, Fr. Gerard Beck, disseminated an invitation by email on 30 December for a “presentation” to be given on Monday evening, 4 January, by Fr. Jonathan Loop.  Questions were solicited beforehand, as there would apparently be no Q&A period after the talk.

          I should mention that in presenting Fr. Loop last evening, Fr. Beck revealed that there had been an SSPX moral theology team of doctors and priests who had consulted on this matter of the liceity of using murdered baby stem cells/DNA in testing, design, and production of vaccines.  Fr. Beck had already told both my wife and me a couple of weeks ago that he had been a part of that team, and last night he told us all that Fr. Loop had been on the team as well.  We were not told what credentials or qualities Fr. Loop possessed that won him a place on the team; however, Fr. Beck made a comment that many in the audience found humorous regarding Fr. Loop’s apparent penchant for controversy.  Perhaps Fr. Beck was referring to Fr. Loop’s bizarre sermon a few months ago when he told us that “God hates the First Amendment more than he hates abortion.”  But that is a topic for another post in the near future.

          In response to Fr. Beck’s invitation for last evening’s presentation, I submitted eleven questions; but only one was addressed.  The one Fr. Loop chose to address was the one in which I asked him to comment on the following words written on 11 December by Bishop Athanasius Schneider and four other solidly Catholic prelates:

          The theological principle of material cooperation is certainly valid and may be applied to a whole host of cases (e.g. in paying taxes, the use of products made from slave labor, and so on). However, this principle can hardly be applied to the case of vaccines made from fetal cell lines, because those who knowingly and voluntarily receive such vaccines enter into a kind of concatenation, albeit very remote, with the process of the abortion industry. The crime of abortion is so monstrous that any kind of concatenation with this crime, even a very remote one, is immoral and cannot be accepted under any circumstances by a Catholic once he has become fully aware of it. One who uses these vaccines must realize that his body is benefitting from the “fruits” (although steps removed through a series of chemical processes) of one of mankind’s greatest crimes.           

          In addressing the comments of these prelates, Fr. Loop made it sound as if this were the opinion of only Bishop Schneider, never mentioning the other four prelates who co-signed.  But most conveniently for Fr. Loop’s argument, he left out the last sentence, thereby making it sound as if any “linkage,” even “a very remote one,” was being condemned by the good bishop of Kazakhstan.  Fr. Loop made much of this strawman he contrived, giving us interesting but invalid analogies of paying taxes and shopping at Costco.  He quoted from the recent article of Dr. Jeff Mirus (here), of all people, who took the prelates to task for allegedly making a whole new category of evil that did not exist previously.  We were told last evening that this is not traditional Catholic moral theology.

Never, at any time, did Fr. Loop read the last sentence of the paragraph quoted, which finishes the thought of, and provides the proper context for, the preceding statement. When read in conformity with the sentences before, the last sentence makes it quite clear that the prelates are referring to the act of people taking into their bodies the stem cells/DNA of murdered babies, not the act of paying taxes or purchasing goods from retailers who support immoral causes. The question of remote vs. proximate cooperation is not the crux of the matter, but rather whether or not the acceptance into our bodies of these ill-gotten goods is a continuing “concatenation” or participatory linkage into the heinous and unspeakable crime of abortion. The Church does not set a “statute of limitations” on such a monstrous crime; nor has any reputable theologian ever suggested that time can decrease the severity of such a crime, especially when taking the vaccine today is not only participation in the abortion of 1973, but more proximately, a sin of benefitting from the fruits of its use in testing, design, or development of a vaccine or pharmaceutical. As one dissenting SSPX priest explained to me recently: “It is the issue of the means that seems to be misleading everyone in this matter. Even if a vaccine was only tested with the use of aborted fetal cells/DNA from forty-seven years ago, this still constitutes an illicit cooperation in the use of an evil/immoral means as a necessary condition for its production and use.” Instead, Fr. Loop concentrates on these words: “any kind of concatenation with this crime, even a very remote one, is immoral and cannot be accepted under any circumstances”. Unfortunately, in last evening’s talk, Fr. Loop never addressed the issue of benefitting from the fruits of an evil, except at one point to say that “time” was one way of cooperation becoming remote rather than proximate.  It was never made clear just how much “time” had to elapse for this to occur.

          Now, those of you who know me know that during my Navy career, one of my duties was to train aircrews to understand what compliance to the U.S. military Code of Conduct entails.  I have continued this over the last two decades in my current profession.  I teach these young men and women, who will be going into harm’s way, to recognize propaganda and indoctrination, should they become captives of a group or nation hostile to the United States.  Propaganda involves using facts, half-truths, and even lies in promoting a specific agenda.  Indoctrination can be recognized by the one-sided argumentation of a presenter in using this propaganda to convince a listener that the indoctrinator is right and that the listener should come to his way of thinking. Imagine my chagrin when I realized last evening, as I sat listening to the spokesman of the SSPX, that we were being subjected to propaganda and being heavily indoctrinated. 

          For nearly ninety minutes, the audience of over one hundred faithful were given some limited information regarding moral theology and told just how complex and difficult moral theology can be.  “Complex” is a word Fr. Loop used a lot, to the point where a man sitting near me leaned over and whispered, “he thinks we’re stupid.” After all, reasoned Fr. Loop, if moral theologians can disagree on certain practical aspects of principles, we in the pews should not feel as if we can have all the answers on our own.  The message was clear: we are just lay people who do not possess the training to understand this very complex issue.  This is, as it turns out, the response that SSPX priests are giving to their faithful on three continents, as reported by Catholic faithful across the oceans: the laity cannot understand the “delicate” complexities of such matters. Fr. Loop presented us with analogies, principles, and arguments which, in the final analysis, resulted in this conclusion: if there is a proportionate cause, and if there is no alternative available, one may take abortion-tainted vaccines under certain circumstances.  What circumstances? Fr. Loop gave us two hypothetical examples:

—  in the situation whereby the state is threatening parents with taking their children out of the home unless the parents take an abortion-tainted vaccine, the parents may take the vaccine in question for the greater good of keeping the family intact and the children in a proper environment;

—  in the situation whereby an employer requires an employee to take an abortion-tainted vaccine as a condition of continued employment, the employee may take the vaccine rather than lose his livelihood.

          In both the cases above, to be fair to Fr. Loop, it was made clear that all means should be taken to try to find an alternative to an abortion-tainted vaccine.  He also made it clear that Catholics may refuse such a vaccine.  Unfortunately, he also left the matter open to a certain amount of subjective discernment (perhaps Bergoglio-style “accompaniment”?) on the part of individuals being presented with difficult choices.  In other words, we all came away from his talk with the understanding that, given certain circumstances, it would be permissible for Catholics to agree to an abortion-tainted vaccine.  Significantly, however, Fr. Loop never told us how we were to judge if our own circumstances would allow for us to make a decision to take a vaccine with stem cells or DNA from murdered babies.  

          If you are reading this and thinking that this is just one man’s opinion, you are only partially correct.  While there are SSPX priests who do dissent from this deplorable conclusion, this presentation would have had at least the tacit approval of Fr. Fullerton, U.S. District Superior of the SSPX. We were told last evening that the talk was being recorded, though furtive private recordings were taking place around me.  The official recording will be made available to Catholics everywhere.  Make no mistake: this is the “definitive” position of the SSPX, not just in the U.S. district, but world-wide.  It is shocking and indescribably disappointing. And we justifiably ask ourselves, “to whom do we turn?”  Let us find some consolation in the words of the five prelates quoted above, who reminded us:

More than ever, we need the spirit of the confessors and martyrs who avoided the slightest suspicion of collaboration with the evil of their own age. The Word of God says: “Be simple as children of God without reproach in the midst of a depraved and perverse generation, in which you must shine like lights in the world” (Phil. 2, 15).

17 thoughts on “The SSPX Doubles Down on the Vaccine

  1. What was the reaction of the majority of the parishioner?

    • At the end of the talk, approximately half of the audience — perhaps less — applauded. Many seemed to be confused. A smaller minority seemed either disappointed or angry. Reactions since that time among those who have mentioned the matter to me have included disappointment and resignation, though there have been at least a couple of faithful who don’t wish to get too involved in the issue, which they feel is above their ability to discern.

    • Our Lord stated there would be only 100 faithful clergy when He returns. We must pray very very hard for Our Clergy, for Satan is attacking them fiercely. Stand Strong For Your Faith, correct the clergy when they are wrong. There is no place to run anymore Faithful. Be wise.🙏✝️

  2. […] There is also a further post on the subject on their blog, enetitled The SSPX Dobles Down on the Vaccine here […]

  3. We must pray very hard for Our Clergy. Remember they are not perfect.

    • Kathryn, thank you for your comment. We would respond that no one we know expects priests to be perfect; however, when a priest publicly disseminates guidance on a matter of faith and morals that would lead faithful to contravene Almighty God’s laws, then we not only may point this out as lay people (per Canon 212), but we most likely are obliged to make public fraternal corrections, depending on our abilities and resources. The matter of abortion-tainted vaccines most definitely does not fall into the moral theology category of remote, and once one is aware of the full awful truth of the fetal stem cell industry, it can certainly be argued that acceptance of such vaccines and pharmaceuticals may actually be formal cooperation in evil. With our best regards and prayers in Our Lord Jesus Christ, Tony and Vickie

      • If one would do their research they will find there is much evil in the poisonous jab. At the time of this meeting at ICC I doubt very many knew that. I did not go to the meeting, I was told later it was extremely disappointing. Today October 18, 2021 there is a huge amount of front line Doctors coming forth warning of the deadly consequences of this jab. Remember …. do your research and be informed. Just say “NO”…. Save Your Soul. 🙏

      • Well, to knowingly or even without proper learning on a subject that involves the danger of sinning and thus offending God, one’s participation in such an act that originated in evil, can never make the act itself righteous in front of God, and therefore results in sin by participation, in evil already committed.

        This is reflected in the Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX, where it is clear that : “The successful injustice of a fact brings with no detriment to the sanctity of the right…” which is condemned by Pius IX.

        There is no limit of participation as such, because when the knowledge of evil exists or when there is neglect of the necessary learning of the facts regarding subject upon which one can either be just or sinning in front of God, then how the evil is accomplished, by what means and level of participation of involvement, plays no role in it, because the evil fruit exists regardless of these criteria, and so it is the ending result that plays the role in our conduct and our own deeds, how exactly we have pleased or offended God in our actions.

        In regards to the so called vaccines, one has to pause and reflect whether they are necessary at all – and prefer the treatment that is more effective and less questionable and most of all not offensive to God, and then, since the virus is survivable, one has to rely on the help of our Lord more than on the means of medical science, tainted by evil procedures and production, and rely on the natural means, and or other medical means that have no such attachments of sin in them. And these exist, and are effective.

        But the problem with knowing the truth and not being helped by God to teach it correctly goes deeper than just making remarks and misleading conclusions, it truly levels the point when people need to realize whether the help of the Holy Ghost is truly present with those who claim to have it, and at the same time produce these kind of fabrications, and claim the use of moral theology as the guiding principle, which, as it is evident in these their fruits, is not the case…but we can only speak in general terms, as those who may listen, would most likely not hear the rest of the truth, until of course, our Lord has mercy on them…and we hope and pray He will have mercy on them..!

  4. Juliano Corrêa

    “To whom do we turn?” Why do you answer that question without a concrete answer, as if the Resistance didn’t exist. The obvious answer is: We have to turn to Bishop Williamson, Bishop Tomás de Aquino, Bishop Zenejas, Bishop Faure, and, if he converts completely, Cardinal Viagnò.

    • Greetings, Juliano, and thank you for your comment. In actuality, we did in fact answer our own question, as it was certainly not rhetorical. The answer, as articulated by Bishop Athanasius Schneider and the four prelates who joined him in his December 2020 letter is a simple one, but not an easy one. It is simple because we have the example of “the spirit of the confessors and martyrs who avoided the slightest suspicion of collaboration with the evil of their own age.” It is not easy because it takes courage of conviction, which has always been lacking in basic human nature. Perhaps it comes more easily to some than others, or maybe it is a question of stealing oneself for what is to come. In any event, the so-called “Resistance” is just another splinter group. We know many Catholics who claim they adhere to this “Resistance” here in North Idaho and Eastern Washington. They rally around this priest or that bishop, and become fractured themselves. And it is hard to tell the players without a scorecard. Is Father Pfeiffer in or out this week? What about Father Chazal? Or the once-popular Fr. Hewko? Frankly, and in all truth and charity (and without veritas there can be no caritas), we certainly wouldn’t turn to Richard Williamson. Finally, who is the arbiter of when Archbishop Vigano’ will be “completely” converted? Will it be the “Resistance”? We think not. We always remember our readers and commenters in our prayers, and welcome you to visit us again here at Tradidi Quod et Accepi. God bless.

      • Juliano Corrêa

        First of all, Fr. Hewko and Pfeiffer are not part of the resistance anymore. The resistance is simply the continuation of the true SSPX and the works of Lefebvre. I don’t know about the faithful in your area, here where I live, they’re the sanest and most charitable people I know among the traditionalists.As for full conversion of Viganò, I mean completely abandoning everything from the conciliar church, and act and preach according to it. Now to the first part of your response: I mean a concrete solution, so for a question about whom shall we turn, that means concrete people. It didn’t sound as a rethorical question to me, and the answer you gave is nothing concrete. I don’t know personally Williamson, but frequently watch his preaches online and I don’t find anything to blame on them. I know personally Dom Tomás and he’s the closest of a saint I know in real life. I don’t have anything to blame on the other priests of the resistance I know.

      • Tony Ambrosetti

        Juliano, you have made our point in your latest comment. So today Fathers Hewko and Pfeiffer are not part of the “resistance” anymore. According to whom? Who is the arbiter of such things? What “resistance” authority makes the determination on who is “in” and who is “out”? Is it the same authority that will tell us when Archbishop Vigano’ has abandoned ” everything from the conciliar church”? Your assertions have proven exactly what we were trying to point out to you. Meanwhile, your understanding of Archbishop Lefebvre’s position vis-a-vis Rome and the hierarchy of bishops is woefully lacking. The good Archbishop and his SSPX have never abandoned “everything from the conciliar church.” Archbishop Lefebvre demanded of all of his priests that they mention the local ordinary of the place where they are offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Canon. Additionally, he always recognized the official hierarchy of the Church. How is that “completely abandoning everything from the conciliar church”? Finally, the implication that traditional Catholics who are not part of the “resistance” are “uncharitable” is only bandied about by those who have stopped attending Mass with these traditionalist groups — such confused individuals as sede-vacantists, home-aloners, etc. It is perpetuated by such refugees, ad nauseam; it is nothing but a red herring. We have no personal animosity toward Catholics who consider themselves part of the “resistance,” though from a theological point of view, it certainly seems to be that such Catholics, like Protestants, are the arbiters of their own nebulous demands and as your response demonstrates, are not a cohesive group in themselves. We wish you the best with them, if that is where you find peace of soul.

    • Juliano Corrêa

      It seems they deleted my last response yesterday. This is not fair because it makes look as if the Resistance had a sedevacantist position, and that is not true. I’ll try to answer again.

      To the first questions: here are the statutes of the Resistance:

      I have no idea what is it that you are talking about “trying to point out to me”, be clearer please, I don’t know what you are talking about.

      The Resistance accepts the hierarchy and name the ordinaries, and accepts the Pope as Francis. What I meant by “everything from the concilicar church” was: the ‘magisterium’, the canonizations, the rite reforms, the code of canon law, the cathecism, the approval of apparitions and so on. I didn’t think anyone would interpret that as not recognizing the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.

      I can’t respond to wathever “implication” crosses other people minds. I don’t know where did you bring that from so I’m just going to ignore that part.

  5. […] on his First Amendment sermon (you can read about another topic we broached in that same meeting here), we hoped to let the issue die a quiet death. Unfortunately, Fr. Loop persisted in publicly […]

  6. […] After reading Fr. Sélégny’s original vaccine-related piece on the SSPX USA District website last December, we requested and were granted a meeting with the local SSPX prior.  He provided reasons for his Order’s conditional acceptance of the vaccines that seemed to us to have been taken from a talking point paper. Then, a “Vaccine Presentation” was held for the faithful in the first several days of the New Year (see our report here) […]

    • This clergyman is completely wrong with accepting the poisonous jab. Personally any clergy who accepts and promotes this evil is not walking with Our Lord Jesus Christ. Will their be any faithful clergy when Our Lord comes back?😪

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s