Saying Donald Trump is the last great hope for Western Civilization is guarded and qualified praise?
I knew this would draw out the howling banshees. You've been exposed for exaggerating the scope of +Vigano's praise of Trump, and slandering him with your exaggerations, and yet you persist in your calumny. In +Vigano's most famous "praise" of Trump, it was a very carefully worded letter in which he was attempting to work Trump's ego (known to be yuge) in order to persuade him to do good, and where he stated that he "dared hope" that Trump was on the side of good. HE, +VIGANO, DARED HOPE that Trump was on the side of good, and was using that to work Trump's ego (which is considerable). He never once called Trump the "last great hope for Western civilization". That is a total slander, but your malice knows no bounds.
+Vigano was a diplomat by profession, and he was skilled at it to the point where he could read personalities and knew how to "work them". His prudential judgment was that the most potentialy beneficial approach would be to praise Trump and appeal to his ego. He, unlike many others, did not fail to notice that if Trump was every attacked (or had his feelings hurt), would lash out with insults in the matter of a 3rd-grader. Even if Trump happened to agree with you in principle, his ego can't take even the slightest hint of criticism. And yet the letter was very carefully worded, with phrase like, "[+Vigano] dared hope ..." that Trump would do good, an expression that clearly indicates that he does not really trust Trump, but that was worded in such a way as to float over his head, as Trump's ego is programmed to filter out the negative if it isn't obvious and direct (in which case he would lash out).
It's a matter of prudence . If you had a child who did some good things, but then was involved also in various sinful things (maybe getting roped into a gang), if you decided that by attacking him for associating with the gang, he would react with hostility (based on his temperament with which you're very familiar), possibly running away from home to join them and therefore get even more deeply embedded with them, maybe you would adopt a tactic, out of prudence, of praising the good he was doing and then on the side attacking gang membership IN PRINCIPLE. +Vigano was one of the most courageous and vocal opponents of the jab (along with +Schneider). Strangely, not Traditional Catholic clergy stand out in this regard. Most were ambivalent about it at best, with a great number of them condoning it.
But imagine for a second Trump's reaction had +Vigano wrote a public letter excoriating him for the jab. Trump would have blown up, ripped at the Catholic Church, probably mocked it, become more contemptuous of Catholicism, etc. But we saw with the letter that Trump was very proud of it, retweeting it. That would make him more inclined down the road to listening to someone like +Vigano ... vs. putting up a mental block and reacting with hostility against what +Vigano stood for (Traditional Catholicism).
I swear that half the forum participants here have serious psychological problems, and some days I feel like someone unleashed an insane asylum into CathInfo.