CathInfo.com

"Unfortunate"?  Despite previous posts claiming the meeting was "just a political rally" it was not so.  Not only did Protestants and Orthodox pray there with him, but a Jєωιѕн shofar was blown.  His 10-minute speech (which ended with a prayer) was on a big screen for all to see for crying out loud.   He most certainly prayed with the non-Catholic attendees (and included them as "brothers and sisters") albeit remotely.

https://www.qoa.life/blogs/news/speech-to-jericho-march/

 
If this was anyone other than Vigano, I suspect the response from the Cathinfo crowd would be quite a bit more....shall we say....intense?  I'd have a lot more respect for the pro-Vigano folks here if they would be as hard on him for these sorts of things rather than passing it off as "unfortunate" or a "relapse" or worse, defend it/explain it away.    

Firstly, unlike some others here, I never denied the quasi-religious nature of that meeting, and if you go back to the thread in question, you will see my first response acknowledging his participation was unfortunate (nor have I defended this act anywhere else).

A convert formerly imbued with 60 years of conciliarism is going to have a relapse here and there; you don’t just turn the page overnight.

But if Vigano is not traditional (despite saying the old Mass, rejecting the conciliar church, and questioning the legitimacy of the council itself) because of this mistake, or because he wanted Tɾυmρ to win, then neither is the SSPX (99% of whom voted for Tɾυmρ in this country) or the SSPV for that matter (whose Americanism even goes so far as to wear the business suit).

It’s funny what criteria some invent to be barometers of tradition.

Was Lazo traditional?  Should we have rejected him because he spent 30 years in the conciliar church?  

But if you want to call Vigano a coward for not coming out of hiding after implicating cardinals and the pope, what do you call the SSPX, who won’t dare to even support Vigano’s expose (and in fact published an article shortly thereafter calling his initiative a waste of time, downplaying the whole affair)?

Ps: Should I also dismiss Pagliarani completely because “he isn’t worthy to have his name mentioned alongside Lefebvre?”

Is there anyone in the Church whose name merits to be mentioned alongside Lefebvre’s in the last 50 years?  If not, should I become an ecclesiavacantist?

False.

Rather than fail 3 of 4 criteria for double effect, they avoided the analysis altogether.

They also sidestep the “continuous theft” and unjust possession argument.

Neither do they address the morality of human experimentation the ναccιnє represents.

Neither do they acknowledge that more abortions are necessary to produce more cells over time.

Instead, they simply focus on proportionality and necessity (neither of which criteria is met) to conclude the morality of the so-called ναccιnє.

Read McHugh and Callan’s discussion of cooperation in sin found in nn. 1506-1544 of Moral Theology: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Best Modern Authorities