In the context of our discussion, all that matters is whether DH is materially heretical in terms of religious liberty. You have conceded that Daly "could very well be right (I don't dispute that he is)."

Well, regardless, Vigano (the thread topic here) has stated that RL is erroneous, so accusing him even of material heresy is unwarranted.

Archbishop Viganò, Donald Trump, and The Americanist Delusion of Traditional Catholics

Thank you for bringing this article to the forum's attention. It reveals all too plainly that much of what passes for deep moral thinking among self-styled Trads is actually deplorable rubbish.

For example, as part of his critique of ++Viganò's letter, the author writes, "an estimated 10 to 18 times as many unborn babies are murdered by contraception than surgical abortion." Any man who lacks the fundamental understanding that a creature needs to be alive before it can be murdered excludes himself ipso facto from consideration as an analyst to be taken seriously.

Furthermore, his assessment of the bulk of the American population as, effectively, evil in se or else culpably condoning evil glibly overlooks the mitigation inherent in the fact that the whole of society has been subjected to a cradle-to-grave process of brainwashing and indoctrination that began even before I was born (i.e., the mid-1940s). The primary instruments in that process have been the Jєωιѕн-owned mass media and the Jєωιѕн-administered and Jєωιѕн-programmed public educational system, from first grade through graduate school. Because of the subversion within our own Church, its prelates offered little or no resistance to the mass indoctrination. Indeed, many of them worked with it hand in hand—think of most of the Council Fathers. Even while the Council was in session, careful observers, notably Léon de Poncins, delineated the scandalous extent of Jєωιѕн involvement and subversion and named many of the most culpable offenders. Not that it did much good, alas.

Implicit in what ++Viganò writes to Trump is the archbishop's understanding that at least a majority of the American people—certainly a majority of white Christian, post-Christian, and once Christian Americans—would prefer good to evil (1) if they were helped to see what differentiated those concepts and (2) if their moral and material leaders, the people they respect and wish to be identified with, were seen to publicly repudiate evil and embrace good plainly and unapologetically. As such a thing hasn't happened in this country in the living memory of most CI members, it is hardly surprising that the mainstream media should wish to minimize public awareness of the archbishop's letter. Sadly, their wish is getting a lot of support from the subset of Trads addicted to sanctimoniousness.

The larger world is well aware of the danger to their narrative that ++Viganò represents. So it is deplorable to see an uncomprehending Trad parvenu, like the author of this article, joining the enemy's attack.

Let’s not overlook the fact that neither Vigano or his translator (or both) did NOT add “St” before John XXIII or JPII.  That’s food for thought.  

Let’s not overlook the fact that neither Vigano or his translator (or both) did NOT add “St” before John XXIII or JPII.  That’s food for thought.  

On the blog of Marco Tosatti in the Italian text it's the same, including Paul VI.