"I did not know the position of Fr. Dolan on the vax .... why would I know that?"
Then WHY WOULD YOU PUBLICLY SPECULATE THAT HE DIED FROM IT?
And Bp. Dolan published and presented himself publicly as BISHOP Dolan even though Fr. Jenkins doubts both his consecration as Bishop and doubts the validity of Novus Ordo consecrations. Yet, he chooses to refer to Vigano as "Archbishop", making the distinction that he is a Novus Ordo Archbishop, but does not offer Bishop Dolan the same respect because his anti-Thuc position makes him choose not to, even though he views both as doubtful or invalid in their titles. It's hypocritical.
I'm very disappointed in Fr. Jenkins's response and how he's handling this.
I did say that he likely didn't know Bishop Dolan's position on the jab and that he was just thinking out loud based on the association we have between the jab and cardiac issues. I have to admit that whenever someone dies of a heart attack or stroke these days, the first thing that pops into my mind is to begin wondering about the jab. That thought did cross my mind also when Bishop Dolan died, but then took a second to recall his extreme opposition to it. I only knew about it due to that video from Bishop Sanborn in response to Bishop Dolan's having excoriated them for being soft on the jab.
Bishop Sanborn has in fact been soft on the jab, and, as Father Jenkins mentioned, given the surprising position that Bishop Dolan took regarding the Schiavo case and his long-time association and alliance with Bishop Sanborn, I don't think it's obvious that Bishop Dolan would have been against the jab. And I believe Father Jenkins that he hasn't really kept up with dispute between Bishop Sanborn and Dolan.
Closest Father Jenkins came to an apology was to say it may have been imprudent to think out loud and to speculate on the subject. He probably should have apologized for speculating about it instead of just saying that it was imprudent.
It's not really calumny, though, in that it's a disputed question (evidently) among Traditional Catholics whether the jab is immoral. So, for instance, Bishop Sanborn and SSPX and some others are really soft on the jab and think it's justifiable. So this is not the same thing as speculating about something that's clearly sinful, say, wondering out loud if Bishop Dolan was a pedophile. THAT would be clear calumny. Here, the question is speculating about what position Bishop Dolan might have taken regarding the jab. Referring to it as calumny begs the question that anyone who takes the jab is guilty of mortal sin. I don't believe that at all. I have formed my own conscience in such a way that I would consider myself guilty of mortal sin if I took the jab, but I also cannot impose my conscience on others. I know some people who have taken the jab and don't consider them guilty of grave sin. They were parroting back the "remote material" stuff promoted by SSPX. They're certaintly guilty of stupidity, but that's as far as I woud take it. There's no ruling on the matter by the Church, so I refuse to impose my conscience on them. I am very consistent and adamant about that.
So I do think this is more a question of mistaken speculation regarding Bishop Dolan's theological conclusions regarding the jab than a question of accusing someone of committing a sin. I wouldn't accuse Bishop Sanborn or the various SSPX priests of mortal sin if they were to take the jab, since they have formed their conscieces differently. I think they're wrong and that it's objectively a grave sin, but I am not their judge.
Let's say Bishop Fellay suddently died of a heart attack. Wouldn't we all begin speculating about whether he took the jab? Of course we would,. That's not slander nor calumny. Even if he had taken the jab, we'd hold +Fellay guilty of bad moral theology, but not mortal sin, as that would, to repeat, entail begging the question regarding the moral status of the jab and then imposing that opinion on the consciences of others.
Now, Father Jenkins admirably denounced dogmatic sedevacantists for imposing their positions on other people's consciences. But, alas, he and the SSPV do the same thing by imposing their theological conclusions regarding the +Thuc line on others. He also claimed that they were not "Catholic" bishops even if they were valid. Where does he get off making that claim? Sure, SOME of the +Thuc bishops were associated with the CMRI, but not all, especially the +McKenna line. But even with the CMRI, where does Father Jenkins get off declaring CMRI not to be Catholic? It's based solely on Schuckhardt's initial assocation with the Old Catholics, but the CMRI assert that the Old Catholic bishop had made an abjuration of error before ordaining / consecrating Shuckhardt. And, even if he didn't, receiving Orders from a non-Catholic does not inherently make someone a non-Catholic. So SSPV have been arrogating unto themselves the Church's authority in imposing their theological position about CMRI and the Thuc line on other people's consciences. So Father is in fact guilty of that which he denounces.