Father Arnaud Sélégny, SSPX: Pragmatist

Father Arnaud Sélégny, SSPX

It was only a matter of time.  The latest missive from Fr. Arnaud Sélégny, posted on the SSPX USA District website on 24 September 2021, is deeply disturbing for any Catholic with a sensus fidei and a well-formed conscience.  It is full of the very same arguments we have been pummeled with for months now; but someone in Menzingen thought we needed to hear it all again.  Unfortunately, it is even worse than the first two tries (last November and December) to convince us of the moral liceity of what have come to be termed abortion-tainted vaccines.  Sounding like a spokesman for the Vatican, Fr. Sélégny writes that “the inevitable loss of one’s professional activity or social responsibility” permit us to partake of the tissue/DNA of murdered babies.   Yes, you read that right: by “professional activity” he means your job, so if you are one of those countless Catholics who is hoping to receive a religious exemption from the Joe Biden vaccine mandate, beware!  Fr. Arnaud Sélégny just threw you under the bus!

In his latest piece, Father Arnaud Sélégny plays the moderate, urging a “practical” stance in response to the Deathvaxx being shoved down our collective throats by bishops’ conferences, governments, and even private industry. Father wants us to abjure the “absolute and categorical positions” in favor of “a practical conduct that is up to everyone to adopt”. He considers the decision to take the vaccine as a “prudential” one, arguing that one’s circumstances should dictate how one responds to this evil attempt by the world to make compliant sheep of us all:

It must therefore be concluded that the fact of consenting to be vaccinated against Covid-19 may sometimes be an eminently prudent act, in the moral sense of the term. It is up to everyone to choose whether to do this or not, depending on their circumstances, after having taken the information or advice of people competent in their field.

Yes, it was indeed just a matter of time for Fr. Sélégny to promote the argument that basically holds that there are no moral absolutes with regard to this issue. We remind our readers that Francesca Romana said it best here. Her eloquent words in that memorable article, written in early April of this year, were a response to those who urged accommodation and — it turns out — anticipated the ever-softening position of bishops and clergy like Fr. Sélégny. Her words ring true more than ever:

. . the absolutists  against a vaccine-derived from human-fetal-cell-experimentation (like myself) are being condemned as intolerant, unreasonable and rabidly anti-intellectual.   I don’t get it.  Isn’t the truth found in absolutes?. . . Is it not absolute Catholic truth that human fetal-cells-used in scientific experimentation come from a “human-being” – conceived and loved by God from the very moment of his or her existence – and made in His very image – known to God even before being formed in the womb?  And that any present benefit through vaccines derived from the use of harvested aborted-human-beings, made in the image and likeness of God, has a taste – however remote – of cannibalism about it?

When Fr. Sélégny first published his original misguided opinion piece on the morality of the COVID-19 vaccines in December of 2020 (see his article here and our analysis of that unfortunate article here) most of us held our breath, waiting for the other shoe to drop.  And now it has indeed dropped — with a very loud “thud”.

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. A short time after that meeting, a “Vaccine Presentation” was held for the faithful in the first several days of the New Year (see our report here)

The presenting priest made it clear to us who were in attendance that (inter alia):

(a) you should trust your priests to give you the right moral guidance;

(b) moral theology is very complex, so since you folks in the pews are not trained as theologians, refer back to “a” above;

(c) over time, cooperation in evil can become remote rather than proximate.

We were appalled at, and extremely disappointed in, the pure arrogance and logical fallacies from that propaganda session.  When no response was forthcoming from a letter we had written to the SSPX District Superior (in response to Fr. Sélégny’s December article), we decided on 22 February 2021 to write a three-page letter to Fr. Davide Pagliarani, SSPX Superior General.  After showing evidence against Fr. Sélégny’s argument of “remote material” cooperation in evil, we made it clear that the disagreement over those concepts was actually secondary to the issue of encouraging medical “researchers” to do evil by accepting (the moral theology term is partaking of) their ill-gotten goods, thereby being accessory to their continuing sin.  We asked Fr. Pagliarani to forget the myth that this evil industry involved a remote one or two murdered babies long ago.  We showed him that the harvesting of stem cells and organs from babies extracted ex utero, who are butchered before being put out of their misery, has continued unabated.  Here, we presented this evidence to our readers — the same evidence we included in our letter to the Superior General of the SSPX.  Summarizing this aspect of the issue, we implored him:

[W]e can see how correct Bishop Athanasius Schneider was when he, along with four other prelates, warned us nearly three months ago that accepting abortion-tainted vaccines was a “concatenation” in evil.  The definition of “concatenation” is a linkage that involves an “interdependence.”  How true his words are!  There is only one conclusion: this issue is certainly not remote, and now that we know the truth, it may even be formal cooperation in evil rather than material.  One thing is certain: the Pontifical Academy for Life, the USCCB, and the SSPX — and any prelates or clergy who have guided naïve and ignorant souls to accept these evil vaccines — are complicit in the deaths of innumerable babies. This is infinitely worse than murder, as you know, Don Davide, for these children are denied the possibility of Baptism, and will likely not enjoy the Beatific Vision from Limbo. It is an outrageous crime against Almighty God!

Further on in our letter, we even predicted the current sad situation wherein Catholics find themselves being persecuted for upholding the teaching of Holy Mother Church.  Remember, we wrote these words on 22 February, many months before Biden’s mandate:

Don Davide, this acceptance by the SSPX of the vaccine is really a betrayal!  We say this because in the current political and hysterical climate, the far-reaching ramifications of such an acceptance will be disastrous. For example, employers will mandate vaccines, and when a Catholic employee explains that he cannot receive such a vaccine, the employer will go to the Vatican and USCCB websites and perhaps even to sspx.org.  The employer will require the employee to demonstrate why his brand of Catholicism is different from the Vatican’s, the American bishops, and even the traditional SSPX.  What a scandal!  I ask you to evaluate whether this is not possible in light of what we have seen this last year.  Moreover, this betrayal will affect familial relationships: many of us have children whom we are trying to bring back to the Faith, children who will consider parental guidance against illicit vaccines as one more “fanatical” opinion of marginalized Catholics these misguided offspring sought to escape.  As St. John Fisher said, “the fort is betrayed by those who should have defended it.”

But instead of Fr. Pagliarani writing back to us, we received a letter from Fr. Arnaud Sélégny, informing us that the Superior General had asked his Secretary General to respond.  Taking exception to our assertion to Fr. Pagliarani that “the arguments of ‘proportionate cause’ and ‘grave reason’” could readily be disproved by “any first-year Moral Theology student,” Fr. Sélégny at the very first threw a bit of a temper tantrum, writing: “I would like to know how a first-year moral theology student would refute my arguments.”  He then provided a very strange statement about concatenation: “There can only be concatenation for a past and distant sin,” showing clearly that he absolutely refused (and continues to refuse) to recognize that we are, through this interdependent linkage (concatenation), creating and continuing a demand for the ghoulish work of medical “researchers.”  For Fr. Sélégny, it is all about whether a decades-old act is remote or proximate, formal or material, with no room in his reasoning for the fact that when we accept abortion-tainted vaccines and pharmaceuticals, we are “partaking” of the evil-doer’s ill-gotten goods and encouraging him to continue his evil deeds.  Father knows well that this is what moral theologians clearly describe as being “accessory to another’s sin,” but he refuses to acknowledge this.  Why?

Fr. Sélégny’s letter of 29 March 2021 to us was full of logical fallacies:

—  he cites the incident in Chapter 8 of St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, making a false moral equivalence that eating food blessed by idolaters is the same as taking into our bodies material that is per se evil.  He should know better.

— he has a misunderstanding of the true dangers of rubella to expectant mothers that causes him to allow for the acceptance of these evil vaccines — which have some of the highest counts of fetal stem-cell material of all current vaccines;

— he actually admits that we are prolonging the fetal cell industry research, but with a wave of the hand, says that we have done our duty if we avoid “as much as possible” abortion-tainted vaccines.

From his disappointing response to our letter, it is truly a small step to the article published on September 24 on the sspx.org website.  Clearly concentrating on the concerns over the safety of the vaccines, Fr. Sélégny tells us that we just have to appreciate the “circumstances,” since whether or not to be vaccinated is really a “prudential decision”. Read these words again, and please consider whether or not this is, in effect, the extension of the Vatican’s dubious marital “internal forum” into the sphere of cooperation in evil:

 . . . it is up to everyone to decide, according to their prudential discernment, whether or not to be vaccinated. After investigation, reflection, or even consultation with competent persons to assess the objections mentioned above, everyone can freely make their decision, according to their knowledge and appreciation of the circumstances. 

Ever the expert in the use of sophistry and logical fallacies — in this case, false moral equivalence — Fr. Sélégny pontificates: “It is just as abnormal to want to dictate to someone how to behave in this case as it is to want to compel them in matters of insurance, tobacco or even diet.” So, the decision to accept into one’s body vaccines that were tested and developed with, or contain, tissue and DNA from butchered babies is the same as the decision to purchase insurance! It is worse than sophistry — this reasoning is actually disingenuous. And speaking of sophistry, here is a real gem from Fr. Sélégny (sounding just like Francis, who has been telling us we must take the vaccine out of love for our neighbor):

Another necessity, that which arises from charity, sometimes requires making sacrifices to ensure the salvation or the good of the neighbor. It does not have the same force as the necessity imposed by justice, but it does exist and concerns every man in regard to his neighbor. However, if a health pass is needed to circulate, it may happen that the obligation to fulfill a duty of charity prompts us to agree to be vaccinated.  

And here Fr. Sélégny shows us that he still does not get the fact that by accepting abortion-tainted vaccines, we are “accessory to another’s sin”:

Here it is a question not of an evil which one commits oneself, but of a sin committed by another: and this is why it is first necessary to reprove the past sin and not to consent to its malice… We must then make it clear that we do not consent to the sin from which we profit: this is why we will be careful to act only for a “proportionate” reason.

Thank you for that, Father.  Yes, every time you, as a Catholic, get jabbed with an immoral vaccine, just tell the nurse that you don’t approve of the way it was developed, and that obviates all moral responsibility on your part.  Oh yes, that has worked so well for us since we first read that guidance from the Pontifical Academy for Life and from the SSPX over fifteen years ago.  In the meantime, David Daleiden has documented countless hours of recordings proving the increased harvesting of aborted baby organs.  Additionally, there is a whole new stem cell line that is being exploited by medical “researchers”.  But Fr. Sélégny would have you believe that you can sleep with a clear conscience by “making it clear (to whom?) that we do not consent to the sin from which we profit.”  What a pathetic, spineless response to what is arguably the greatest evil of our day!

Had enough yet?  If you have not tired from these snippets of Fr. Sélégny’s sophistry and moral mental gymnastics ad nauseam, read the entire article, if you dare.  It is a tragic reminder that regardless of the auspicious beginnings of an organization (in this case, a faithful missionary order begun by the saintly Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre), it can always go sour.  Ask any Jesuit!  But this disappointing article is also a reminder that we must place our trust only in Almighty God, not in any one man or group of men.  We would be remiss if we didn’t remind our readers that there are indeed some priests in the SSPX who are opposed to the vaccine and who, like Fr. Trevor Burfitt and Fr. Kevin Robinson, have successfully fought back against the tyrannical mandates in their states.  But the willingness of the leadership — in Menzingen and in the various District houses — to accommodate this evil is too heartbreaking for words.  And the propagation of such drivel as that of Fr. Sélégny is more than a little disheartening.  God willing, those of us who knew and loved the Archbishop will have our prayers answered that his wayward sons will, on this most important issue, find their way back to the true teaching of the Gospels.  

31 thoughts on “Father Arnaud Sélégny, SSPX: Pragmatist

  1. St Sophia – Pray for us.

  2. A superb article – thank you for this (very sad) update and commentary on the tragic and scandalous support for the vaccines by the SSPX.

    I’ve posted a comment on our Catholic Truth Scotland blog which you can read at the following link (I’ve just posted it so it’s at the end right now)

    • Thank you for the kind words. We agree that it was the perfect spot to post it. It is hard to see how this form of “situational ethics” that has crept into the SSPX is not a result of moral cowardice.

    • Selegny set a morally dangerous precedence and one many ignorantly took to heart at the onset of this saga. They went out and believed the media narratives, WHO, CDC, Fauci, Francis, and the ill advising PAL and got their inoculations. Making every one of these fallacious arguments permissible. They based their fear as top priority and Selegeny was there to finesse their spiritual blindness almost at the beginning of the roll out. The very fact that this has not deterred the laity from receiving these abortion laced jabs shows the lack of proper formation within the walls of the seminaries, chanceries and priories. I have nothing but concern going forth, as we must now vet the priests who form us. Shall we withhold financial support from them as we did when we were at NO parishes, this might be plausible.

      What must one measure in our research, the fact that abortion whether past or present has been an ongoing travesty, making for Mengele Scientism to be twisted into Catholic moral theology by the spiritually blinded.
      Next is the defilement of one’s own body to gain a perceived good which has not been thoroughly tested. Garnering thousands of deaths and countless injuries for a virus that has a 99% survival rate.
      Could this be God’s chastisement for partaking in such evil?
      Lastly, nothing was mentioned on the level of control these globalist megalomaniacs have been granted by an unknown source to subjugate the entire world. How many pinches of incense will the likes of Selegny give to appease these people? How many boosters will be enough? How much digital technocracy will we allow these Luciferians as that has been their main end game?
      Catholics have very little recourse in their priests, the sacraments are being held hostage in some areas by NO parishes. Is this what ‘prudential considerations’ look like and is the SSPX going to head that way?
      It is clear that the SSPX has been infiltrated with morally weak priests, we just didn’t know to what extent and this has quickly come into focus.
      Dear Lord, have mercy on us.

    • I’ve stopped going to the SSPX chapel because of that post. How dare they try to make me feel guilty of not being charitable to my neighbor by not getting a vaccine coming from aborted fetal cells! That is being an accessory to another’s sin.

      • We hope you mean because of his post, and not ours. Our intent is to correct the SSPX leadership, not to drive people from their chapels. Still, it is completely understandable that you would want to distance yourself from bad moral guidance. God bless you.

  3. Both you and SSPX are obtusely missing the main evil in these particular so-called vaccines, most of which in the West are actually gene therapies. They are not vaccines at all by the long-accepted pre-2020 definition of vaccines.

    For the vast majority of people, the risks of taking the shots far outweigh the benefits.

    By officially published figures alone, well over 100,000 people worldwide have died shortly after the shots, and many millions have suffered long term debilitating side effects.

    There is plenty of additional information being released both officially and by whistle-blowers in government, in health agencies, in or formerly in pharmaceutical companies and in the medical and nursing professions that proves beyond reasonable doubt that the shots are causing 4 to 10 times as many deaths as the passive reporting systems capture.

    Taking the shots is like playing Russian roulette.

    Plus, the evil motives of those behind the shots has been openly proclaimed, even boasted of, and government coercion and mandates for use of still experimental medications are abuses of the individual, which are not only anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, immoral and unethical, but but are also illegal and unlawful by Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) adopted by many countries under international treaty agreement.

    • Thank you, Paul, for your comments. We agree about the extreme risks that the vaccines — especially the mRNA variants — pose to those who receive them. We have been aware of all of the points you made in your comments since the statistics started rolling in on the VAERS website, which we check frequently (a government site which, as you well know, only estimates tallies of about 1% of he actual number of adverse effects, according to CDC’s own admission). In fact, long before the adverse effects of the shots became well known just around Christmas time 2020, we had already been following closely the Wuhan/Chapel Hill/NIH/Fauci connection and the “gain of function” research our tax dollars financed to the tune of more than $3.7 million. We also began spreading the word about ADE and the failed coronavirus vaccine research with ferrets and cats.

      However, we would disagree that the “main evil,” as you put it, is either the plethora of serious side-effects or the gene therapy aspects of the jabs.
      We have intentionally highlighted the moral liceity of the abortion connection over the physical dangers of the vaccines. We have believed since much earlier in the year that the health dangers of the deathvaxx can be a distraction to what we really need to be focused on. In fact, as far back as January 30, we posted the following:


      That is not to say that we are not very profoundly concerned about the obvious dangers of the vaccines. But it could be problematic for Catholics who reject vaccines primarily for reasons of the jabs adversely affecting one’s health. After all, what happens when a “perfectly safe” vaccine is eventually developed, but still tested or developed with, or containing, tissue/DNA from butchered and murdered babies? We are convinced that the line must be drawn primarily with vaccines and pharmaceuticals derived from “fetal” stem cells and the encouragement acceptance of such products provides to the ghoulish “researchers” to continue their barbarous trade. We were — and remain — concerned that the many dangers inherent in the various vaccines can be distracting from what we view as this “main evil.” So, as you can see, in our estimation, we are not missing — obtusely or otherwise — the grave dangers of the vaccines.

      Having said that, even though (for several reasons) we choose to concentrate on opposition to these vaccines based on pro-life principles, it should be noted that we believe (with Holy Mother Church) that partaking of rushed and clearly dangerous medical regimens like the current group of anti-COVID19 vaccines is a serious sin against prudence and is likely a sin against the 5th Commandment regarding ingesting/taking into one’s bodies dangerous substances, self-mutilation, etc.

      Again, we appreciate your comments and hope to see you in these comment boxes again in the future. God bless you, Tony and Vickie Ambrosetti.

      • By main evil, I meant by sheer numbers of murders, to put it bluntly.

        The murder of hundreds, or even thousands, of unborn babies to produce the CV19 concoctions actually does pale in comparison to the number of people murdered by them – which now include younger and younger children.

        And yes, as an anti-abortion charity supporter since a few days after I opened my first bank account in my late teens, I am well aware that a quarter of all babies conceived since 1980 have been murdered before birth.

        My point was that in considering the morality of a particular course of action, one should consider ALL of the reasonably knowable effects, not narrow in on one to the exclusion of others.

        If some less Catholic, less Christian people can be persuaded not to take the concoctions, by ANY of the immorality or other arguments – whether through selfish preservation motives or selfless motives – more lives can be saved.

        Moreover, those spared will have more time to come round fully to support the selfless as well as the selfish moral reasoning.

        Jesus used both carrot and stick in his preaching and teaching about how to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

  4. Further to my previous comment, there is an increasing array of cheap, effective, proven, safe treatments that – in suitable combinations for individual patients and their specific needs – have been demonstrated in many countries to have drastically reduced deaths and hospitalisations.

    • It would be useful to know which of these treatments are morally safe, i.e. not produced or tested on fetal cells.

      I have read elsewhere that monoclonal antibodies are produced immorally using fetal cells.

      I have also read that even ivermectin was at some stage tested on fetal cells. I believe it has been tested in many other ways, not least now on over 4.5 billion children and adults since 1987. I am not sure, however, if the approval for widespread use in the 1970’s was fully reliant on the fetal cell tests, or whether there were also morally licit tests conducted on which approvals also relied. I suspect it underwent full clinical trials with willing volunteers in those days, but I may be wrong.

  5. Tragically, while moral somersaults are conjured up to create wriggle room for the acceptance of the jab, the little babies are trapped and cornered with no means of escape.

  6. Thanks so much for this information and your analysis of it. I can’t express how helpful it is. I’ve been attending an SSPX chapel for many years and I am so sorry to see this gradual drifting into the conciliarist swamp. It seems that, on earth, all authority is gathered into the hands of unworthy, corrupt men. We are foolish to believe we can ever trust them. I don’t remember a Church that was firmly dedicated to the truth, but it must have existed, since the patrimony of its teaching remains. May God have mercy on all of those who are cooperating in this evil, especially within the hierarchy of the SSPX. Prayers are desperately needed for all good and holy priests.

  7. It seems that the main problem of Fr. Sélégny is:
    1) the false premise it is an ordinary vaccine
    2) isolation/abstraction of the vaccine problem from the vaccine “environment” i.e. the so-called pandemic and totalitarianism coming in one bundle with the jab.

  8. How would Selegny’s argument be any different if instead of vaccines mad from aborted children we were being asked to eat a piece of pickled fetus at the behest of highly-decorated State witch doctors? After all, the baby died long ago and we had nothing to do with the murder….,

  9. “…taking the advice from everyone competent in their field” TRANSLATION: Apparatchiks dispensing the “take the blue pill” propaganda. Oh and by the way, “…sometimes may be an eminently prudent act…” When you are dressing the pig up for a big party, it’s always best to put lots of bright red lipstick on miss piggy, right? That’s why you use words like “eminently” to jam your propaganda down the feckless excessively pious faithful audience. Because it’s what “you” do as a dis-information/false opposition specialist. You have lots of experience with being this way because you seek accommodations with true Catholic’s enemies in the Vatican. It’s not a good time to be a Wolf Dressed Up as a Sheep, when the Sheep are Armed to the Teeth!

    • Your use of the term “Apparatchiks” is perfect for this sad situation. And yes, not just “prudent,” but “eminently prudent”. Good grief!

      • Your blog post is like Dropping Depth Charge on the Fallacies & Sophistry being employed to ram Situation Ethics down our throats disguised as moral theological expertise. This “stuff” is Common Sense 101.

  10. But is this the official position of the SSPX, or just the opinion of one member? Wouldn’t the final determination fall on Bishop Fellay’s authority?

    • Absolutely not. Bishop Fellay is no longer Superior General and as Archbishop Lefebvre explained to those of us who were in attendance at the episcopal consecrations on June 30, 1988 at Econe, the four bishops would have no hierarchical faculties within the SSPX. Fr. Selegny’s writings are straight from Menzingen. He is the Secretary General, just under Fr. Pagliarani, the Superior General. Sadly, this is the party line, and has been since last December.

      • Is there another traditional Catholic group you recommend that can help those of us who need help gaining an exemption?

      • Hello, Anthony; thanks for your question. We want to make it clear that we are not at all saying that the SSPX is completely corrupted. We attend Mass and go to Confession at the local SSPX chapel here in Post Falls, as well as at the FSSP parish now relocated to our town. We have no beef with most of the Society clergy here — they are very good priests and have been guests in our home on numerous occasions. In fact, the pastor wrote an excellent religious exemption letter for us. It is based on the letter from the bishops of Colorado and is being offered by many SSPX priests in the USA District. Just ask your local Society clergy. If you would like a template for your own request, we recommend the one widely distributed by Fr. Kevin Robinson, SSPX, who is posted in New Jersey.
        In spite of our criticisms of the SSPX leadership and the occasional priest who has a misguided hatred for our nation’s founding, there are so many good priests in the SSPX — many we know personally — and we are always thankful to God for them. We owe the solid foundation of our children in large part to Archbishop Lefebvre and the many excellent SSPX priests with whom we became familiar — especially during our years living in Italy and Spain.
        It is the leadership that seems to be driving this tragic acceptance of the vaccine — an acceptance that went from very limited and conditional in January of this year to “eminently prudent” with Fr. Selegny’s most recent article. Please do not become discouraged, and don’t just walk away from a chapel because you disagree with the leadership on this vaccine issue. You will find many solid priests in the Society; they just keep their heads down and go about their duties to provide the Sacraments to the faithful. On an optimistic note, we have been around the SSPX long enough (four decades) to know that leadership in both Menzingen and the District houses changes over time; so our hope and prayer is always that the many good priests in the Society will eventually win out and fill those top positions.
        Having said all of the above, it is a sad fact — especially if your live near one of the large priories like ours or the one in St. Mary’s, Kansas — that any criticism of the Society is seen by the fanatical water-carriers as a betrayal, when it should be considered constructive criticism out of love for a traditional missionary order that was founded by one of the greatest and most courageous prelates of the 20th Century. Just today we heard from a good friend who was censored on the lay-run SSPX Facebook page for breaking their rules (he attempted to place a link to our article on that page). He was told by the moderator that “it makes no sense” to post something that “slams the SSPX”. So, it can be frustrating; but stay the course and we think you will find that, in most cases (despite the anomalies of the vaccine support and occasional priests who love to trash our nation’s founding), you will receive solid Catholic teaching and guidance. We will pray that you find this to be true.
        We hope this helps,
        Tony and Vickie Ambrosetti

      • Your extensive reply to my question about finding another traditional Catholic organization was very much appreciated and helpful. I’m in the process of joining an SSPX chapel, but the news about vaccines was so discouraging, I was thinking it may not be worth it. Thanks to your reply, I will stick with it. Thank you! And thank you for the tip about Fr. Robinson’s letter.

      • We think that you are making the right decision. God bless you and yours.

  11. Interesting article, Tony, glad to see that you’re both well. Blessings and salutations from somewhere deep in the Rockies. Give me a call sometime and we’ll catch up.

    • Hello, Rick, it is very good to hear from you. We reminisce about you and the “old days” often. You would not recognize our little town now. We hope that you and yours are all well. God bless you.

    • Is this the Father Robinson template you’re referring to:


      Dear faithful,
      Recently, both the state of Colorado and the city of Denver have made it mandatory for their employees to give proof of vaccination or provide a religious exemption letter by some time in September. Some of you have contacted me, asking if I could issue such a letter.

      Firstly, I would like to mention that the SSPX does not consider it morally wrong to take a vaccine derived from fetal cell lines, if there are no other options available. Doing so, it follows the June, 2005, document of the Pontifical Academy of Life, which enunciated the following principles:
      the production of vaccines derived from aborted fetuses is condemned,
      at least for now, under certain conditions, Catholics may use fetal cell line vaccines only when it is impossible to use vaccines derived from non-fetal cell lines,
      the availability of and production of non-fetal cell line vaccines must be persistently and resolutely petitioned for by Catholics,
      Catholics have the duty to make known their objections to appropriate government agencies
      For an explanation of the moral permissibility of taking a covid vaccine, see https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/it-morally-permissible-use-covid-19-vaccine-62290

      Secondly, I have contacted the District House on the question of issuing religious exemption letters. They said that there is no need for a priest to issue such a letter, but that a letter that you yourself draw up is legally sufficient, if you mention that it is your sincerely held religious belief that taking the vaccine would be immoral and against your conscience.
      I have attached to this Flocknote a religious exemption letter that a Catholic may use, which I obtained from here: https://www.ncbcenter.org/ncbc-news/vaccineletter

      Please note that those who are mandating the vaccine may not be legally authorized to do so. See https://yournews.com/2021/05/21/2130587/robert-barnes-shares-a-message-that-concerned-americans-can-send/

      Lastly, I am not a doctor, and so I am not in a position to speak on the possible health side effects of taking the vaccine. However, I did speak tonight with a traditional Catholic doctor here in Colorado. I wanted to ask him whether he believes that the covid-19 vaccines might have possible side effects. He says that he has serious concerns about the vaccines, because of their experimental nature and various reports of people being injured by them. He mentioned that he can understand the elderly wanting to get the vaccine to protect themselves from a disease that can be quite damaging for them, but that he advises those who are younger not to get the vaccine.

      I find it unfortunate that such pressure is being put on Americans to take a drug, a vaccine, even if they have concerns about its possible side effects. Several have mentioned to me how difficult it is for them to choose between keeping their job and getting the injection.
      My hope is that this Flocknote will provide you with some options in the face of this pressure.

      God bless you,
      Fr. Robinson


      • Yes, indeed, this is the one to which we were referring. It is very disappointing, when so many other SSPX priests are reminding us that it is sinful to acquiesce in the acceptance of abortion-tainted vaccines, that Father felt compelled to remind his faithful that “the SSPX does not consider it morally wrong to take a vaccine derived from fetal cell lines, if there are no other options available.” This is in fact the same line we have been hearing from the SSPX leadership and spokesmen; however, it is the position we have been fighting against since last December when sspx.org ran an anonymous article conditionally permitting the vaccine, then removing it, then replacing it with the erroneous evaluation of Fr. Arnaud Selegny. Here is what happens when you accommodate with the world:
        It just gets worse and worse. Thank you for the forward of Fr. Paul Robinson’s letter.

  12. […] Criticism of Fr. Sélégny’s overly positive attitude towards the novel vaccination, which many believers find incomprehensible, came, for example, from a layman, Anthony Ambrosetti , from the USA who is affiliated with the […]

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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