Briefly on Non-Dogmatic Statements of Fact: 

My words will be in regular font.

No. when the Church rules that the conditions do not exist in these times, claiming that they do is disobedience.

You are ascribing to the Church a power beyond its competence. There is no special protection by the Holy Spirit when it comes to non dogmatic statements of fact. Period.

Pretending there is such a charism is basically is to fulfill William Gladstones nineteenth century caricature of Catholics as mind numbed robots completely dependent on Rome. The church is no more qualified to pronounce on the efficacy of modern penal systems than she is on the best way to build a dam, design a ship, conduct meteorological experiments, or prepare breakfast.

Prudential judgment helps us determine *how* to best obey Church teaching, not *whether* to obey  it.

Prudential judgement is subjective. It is also not free from possible errors as even the Vatican admits in Donum Veritatis.{1} It is certainly erroneous to automatically dismiss any and all prudential judgments of the Church the way many do. But it is no less erroneous to treat every prudential judgment as if it is carved on stone tablets from Mt. Sinai as you are in essence doing. The truth is between the Scylla of frequent and flagrant disobedience and the Charybdis of your kind of faith asphyxiating neo-ultramontanism.

Note:

{1} For further reading on this and other magisterial matters, see the following thread:

On the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, Obedience, and the Requirements of Faithful Catholics

Miscellaneous Musings on Neoscholasticism:

Whatever one wants to say about the Second Vatican Council, the intentions of the Fathers, of Pope St. John XXIII and all, one thing bears nothing. Namely, whatever fits and starts, whatever incomplete elucidation were involved in the process, one unquestionable good was the Second Vatican Council smashed neo-scholastic crap and more or less buried it. However good the intentions of its promoters were initially in wanting to recover authentic scholasticism, the actual result was a sham and at best a shell of authentic scholasticism. 

This increasingly fraudulent form of scholasticism was dominant in the Church in roughly the century prior to the Second Vatican Council. The Council to its great credit oriented the Church towards viewing the faith in a far more genuinely traditional way: incarnationally and a faith manifested through charitable service. What was so damaging about neoscholastic methodology is it asphyxiated the faith by making of it not a lived faith but instead a series of dogmatic theological propositions.{1} When the latter become the primary point of focus to the detriment of an incarnational understanding, it causes ones faith to become very sterile and unlifelike. 

We can all take issue with some of the things that came out of the Council, things that could have been said or expressed or formulated better. However, one undeniable benefit was the Second Vatican Council to its great credit smashed the sclerotic neoscholastic approach to the faith and set about expressing the faith more incarnationally as a faith that is lived through embodying the corporeal and spiritual works of mercy, not merely a jumble of verbal formularies.

Note:

{1} It was also based less on the original scholastic sources than on later commentators and various glosses they put on their commentaries on original sources which were often erroneous but confused with the thoughts of the schoolmen. 

Points to Ponder:

Do not ever forget or forgive those who sought to make 2020 as miserable as possible for the sake of playing politics!

 The Dogma Doesn't Live Loudly In Him

To take a bit of issue with the above article, pastoral theology presupposes dogmatic theology. What many of my fellow conservatives fail to grasp is repeating dogmatic formulations into a void accomplishes next to nothing in moving people towards the faith. Faith without works is dead. For his occasional stumbles Pope Francis understands this. It often seems many conservatives do not or at least beyond paying lip service to the concept at best.

Here is my dilemma: the same big media and big tech sources insisting all is well and there is nothing to see here viz potential widescale fraud and all have proven themselves repeatedly over the years to be a bunch of untrustworthy fucking liars and scum. 

So when proven untrustworthy fucking liars and scum march in lockstep trying to censor legitimate inquiries, I instinctively will support the latter because I have zero trust with the untrustworthy fucking liars and scum of big media and big tech. I would not piss on them if they were on fire and I will immediately distrust apriori everything they say about anything.