That is what I've been noticing about his Excellency over the past couple years. Sure, he calls out the evils of Bergoglio and the Novus Ordo, but he has said very little about the blatant worldwide conspiracy overtaking all centers of government.

After reading the statement, I can see that his logic on the moral stance of whether or not to take the vaccine is solid. But, that's only taking into account the shot as a traditional vaccine, which we all know that it is not. Most of us, while very concerned about the usage of any fetal cells derived from abortion, are only secondarily concerned about the shot in this regard; and rather have more grave concerns over the long-term effects, which his Excellency briefly skims over, and how that plays into a violation of the 5th Commandment.

Compare what Bp. Sanborn has said here to someone like Fr. Jenkins or Fr. Chazal, who have been talking about the potential implications of these mandates and the shot for months now, and we can see that the good Bishop appears to be fairly ignorant of just how grave this entire situation is.

Yes, I feel the same way, unfortunately. It seems as though age has dulled those once sharp anti-Modernist teeth.

Only one who's living in some bubble without any application of historical context to the situation.  Father Ripperger argues that the morality is informed by the context.

This distinction of material vs. formal has largely been misapplied in the realm of moral theology, to the point that you could shoot someone in the head and if you don't "internally (in your mind) consent to his death," then you don't commit a grave sin.  This notion of formal vs. material has also been used to gut EENS dogma (and Bishop Sanborn is not great on that issue either).  Material-Formal is in fact the go-to distinction of a Thomist, but it's been warped into "external" vs. "internal" in the realm of moral theology and soteriology.  Moral Theology needs to be framed in terms of cause and effect, to determine what's OBJECTIVELY grave.  Now if the consent isn't there, then that mitigates culpability in the intenral forum, but that does not make the act itself permissible.  That has to be determined by cause and effect.  Am I a CAUSE of the immoral action?

Nevertheless, applying remote material cooperation to this case is like saying it's OK for me to buy a stolen vehicle because I didn't really agree with the original theft of it.  You're participating in an ONGOING evil.  There's nothing particularly remote about this evil.  Folks like Bishop Sanborn get myopically trapped in a syllogism and fail to see the wider context.

Bishop Sanborn is a guardian of souls and defender of the faith. If there is an assault on the faith connected with the jab, it is only implicit; there is nothing explicitly against Christ or our Catholic faith about the jab in se. I understand the connections most Trad's make between the Great Reset, the vax, the lockdowns, etc. I would tend to agree there. But I see that a faithful shepherd - even without compromise to the faith - could take Bishop Sanborn's position.


The crux is Question 6 in Bishop Sanborn's memo. I think his reasoning there certainly defensible, but if there's any basis to question his judgment as in some way disqualifying, it's there. I haven't seen any reasoned objection that his position is in some ways disqualifying as to his position as a leader of the traditional cause of the faith on that ground.

Question 6. Would it not be immoral to take the vaccine because tissue from aborted babies was used in its development? No. The reason is that it would be a cooperation in abortion which is both material and remote. Catholic moral theology teaches that, where there is a proportionate reason, one may cooperate in an evil act, provided that the cooperation is material and remote. Material cooperation means that you do not consent to the evil act. It is opposed to formal cooperation, in which consent is given. Therefore a pro-abortion nurse in an abortion clinic who helps the doctor murder the babies is giving formal cooperation, since she consents. Remote cooperation means that the act you are positing flows into the evil effect only to a lesser degree. 3 So the janitor who cleans up the abortion clinic at night contributes only very remotely to the murdering of babies. But he could not take such a job except for a proportionate reason, e.g., it is the only job he can get., and provided that there be no scandal (a condition required for any remote cooperation). Furthermore, the vaccines, according to the emphatic statements of their manufacturers, do not contain fetal tissue. It is true, however, that the vaccines were developed by using fetal tissue for research from babies aborted many decades ago. Hence the acceptance of the vaccine is only a very remote cooperation in abortion, if indeed it can be considered to be a cooperation at all. Consequently the vaccine could be taken for a proportionate reason. I say could, since someone may opt to refrain altogether from any cooperation, even remote, with abortion. No one should be obliged to act against his conscience in this matter. It should be pointed out, however, that every time you pay your federal taxes you are remotely cooperating in abortion, since the federal government monetarily supports Planned Parenthood. But you have a proportionate reason, namely to avoid a jail sentence for tax evasion. The same may be said for your school taxes, supporting in many cases school districts which promote CRT or transgenderism. Many products and services, furthermore, which you purchase involve a remote cooperation in evil projects, but this is cooperation which is both material and remote. Most of the big corporations are “woke,” and contribute money to evil entities. (Holding stock in these companies, for example, would be proximate cooperation. So look at your portfolio.)

******Footnote 3 - The famous moral theologian Merkelbach expresses it this way: “cooperation can be proximate or remote, to the extent that the 3 means provided by its very nature or by circuмstances flows more or less and has a greater or lesser connection with the sin of the principal agent, v.g., to hold the ladder for someone who is climbing it, or to give an idol to an infidel is considered proximate, whereas to hand a ladder to a thief, or to sell the material from which an idol will be made, is remote cooperation.”

I haven't read through this yet, but this is Father Stephen McKenna's ...of St Gertrude....response regarding the vaccine:


http://www.sgg.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/JabMcKenna211205.pdf

So, +Sanborn was going to just say nothing, but then decides to capitulate, if you will, in order to offer such an utterly useless contribution during one of the most serious moments in history?  Ah, the many hirelings of Traddieland; unfortunately for the sheep, they never disappoint.

.
This is not at all a common practice. On the contrary, I read everything Bp. Sanborn writes and this is the first time I have ever seen him append the signatures of other priests to one of his articles.