Fr. Pagliarani said that it's a question of prudence; Okay but wouldn't it be a mortal sin against the virtue of prudence if a father of a family takes the vaccine knowing that it is dangerous? The father is risking leaving his family without a father.

Summary:

Fr. Pagliarani's opening speech lasted 24 minutes.  He spent the first ten minutes building up to the notion that the SSPX has chosen to "step aside" because this is a "medical issue".  Ridiculous.  Medical issues often have moral aspects, take sterilization, or in vitro fertilization, etc.  He implies that this is solely a medical issue.

He talks around the notion of "globalism" but refuses to say that they have an obligation to oppose the Satanic globalist agenda.  He feigns being "above it" by appealing to the "supernatural aspect," namely, that it's a punishment for our sins.  EVERY EVIL is allowed by God as a punishment.  That does not absolve anyone of the obligation to fight and resist it.

He says the SSPX refuse to takes sides because he says that both the anti-jab and the pro-jab sides appear to the false principles of "freedom" and "human rights".  So it's OK for a government to butcher its citizens and wrong to insist that they have a right to live?  Communism can take away the human "right" to private property?  He thereby throws out the entire social teaching of the Popes and dethrones Christ the king, deferring to the Globalists.

And his ONLY mention of abortion in the keynote speech was to actually associate the ANTI-JAB movement with abortion, claiming that they're appealing to "my body my choice" thinking.  NOT ONE WORD in his keynote speech about the abortion tainting of the jab.

In the panel discussion later, he tries to pretend that St. Thomas Aquinas backs his position, rambling around the "remote material cooperation" and wrongly referring to it as "taking advantage" of evils done by others.  Sure, let me go to a car lot selling stolen vehicles to "take advantage" of that.  Is he out of his mind or asleep in seminary or a Satanic infiltrator?  This was so bad that I have come to the conclusion that Pagliarani is a Masonic infiltrator of the SSPX.  He had the gall to tie the anti-jab movement to abortion and ignore the abortion link to the jab in his main / keynote speech.

Finally, he uses the "taking cornea from a person who had been killed example" that actually is a deliberately false metaphor.  And the gaps in his metaphor actually prove more clearly the reasons (1 and 2) above why it's really formal cooperation and a grave sin.

This is so bad that it's of the devil, and I accuse Pagliarani of being a Masonic infiltrator.

If by necessity I ever have to set foot in an SSPX chapel again, they're never getting another dime of collection money out of me.

So now he begins to ramble around material remote cooperation, though he never uses the actual phrase, saying instead that it's possible to "take advantage of the evil done by others".

"Take advantage"?  That is NOT the right expression here.

He uses the example of taking a cornea from a person who was "killed" (presumably he means "murdered").

Ridiculous example because --
1) you can only take the cornea if the person indicated a willingness to donate it (vs. the theft of the remains of the aborted baby)
2) you can't do that if they're killing people in order to supply corneas

We're in scenario #2 here and not just a person who happened to be killed.

Then he babbles about he it's OK to take a mosque and convert it into a Catholic Church or eat meat sacrified to idols.  Has absolutely nothing to do with this issue.

If there were an operation where people were going around murdering individuals to provide a supply of corneas, yes indeed it would be formal cooperation in the evil for you to go in and receive that procedure.  This is actually one of the clearest example yet (ironically incorrectly applied to support his position) of why it's evil to get the jab.

Bear with me, because I am going on gut instinct here alone and am totally open to feedback on this. I am going to wade into the swamp here, because a lot of this stuff goes over my head, and I have made no bones about it since I got here. But I don't get embarrassed easily by any stretch, so enjoy getting my feet wet and trying to figure out complex ethical issues, etc.

The way I see it, is that the virtue of Justice would trump prudence. *In this case, I would say that a father may in fact have a duty to take it if it means he can continue to provide for his family, even if that time ends up as short. In other words, nobody knows when they will die, so that father may have died at age 36 anyway, regardless of what he took or not. (NOW, side point: if the person is given a known lethal injection of potassium chloride in sufficient quantity to stop his heart, well, that is different. And yes, it would be stupid for the father to take it, because for sure, 100%, he would know it would stop his heart quickly right then.)

Carrying on with my first point of the situation, *If he did not take it, and the family starves, then I would say that would be a mortal sin.

It would be another way of saying the father has to be willing to sacrifice his life for his family. I think we are both in the same ballpark, but struggling to grasp it from two different sides of the plate.

It's kind of like what I was trying to explain to Sean on his other thread. He is a father, and he first owes Justice to HIS family, to provide and protect them in an SHTF scenario, but then additionally, as a Catholic, he owes in justice to help others in that scenario next.