Author Topic: Emile "Francis Miller  (Read 677 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: Emile "Francis Miller
« Reply #15 on: July 18, 2020, 01:28:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, Quo Vadis Domine. The reputation of the sedevacantist priest and the movement in general is far more important than the innocence of the children.
    Like the Voris allegations against the SSPX prisets and those against the resistance priests. If true, they should be punished and we should not remain silent. We do not need more sodomites desecrating the Eucharist and raping our children.

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5340
    • Reputation: +2529/-1656
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Emile "Francis Miller
    « Reply #16 on: July 18, 2020, 01:31:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, Quo Vadis Domine. The reputation of the sedevacantist priest and the movement in general is far more important than the innocence of the children.
    QVD's comments were more general in nature, but I suspect you knew that.  
    "For there is not any thing secret that shall not be made manifest, nor hidden, that shall not be known and come abroad."- Luke 8:17


    Anonymous

    • Guest
    Re: Emile "Francis Miller
    « Reply #17 on: July 18, 2020, 01:41:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, Quo Vadis Domine. The reputation of the sedevacantist priest and the movement in general is far more important than the innocence of the children.
    I couldn’t care less whether he is a sedevacantist priest or not. The disgusting part is that you have no first hand knowledge and are anonymously trying to destroy a priest’s reputation without the slightest scruple. 

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1495
    • Reputation: +585/-726
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Emile "Francis Miller
    « Reply #18 on: July 18, 2020, 01:42:45 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, Quo Vadis Domine. The reputation of the sedevacantist priest and the movement in general is far more important than the innocence of the children.
    This was me:
    I couldn’t care less whether he is a sedevacantist priest or not. The disgusting part is that you have no first hand knowledge and are anonymously trying to destroy a priest’s reputation without the slightest scruple. 
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 21895
    • Reputation: +12047/-6069
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Emile "Francis Miller
    « Reply #19 on: July 18, 2020, 03:11:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • He had some sort of camp for boys that he thought my son's should attend. That was creepy sounding to me. Needless to say we avoided him as well.

    Well, by itself, holding a boys' camp and believing that boy should attend is not suspicious or creepy.  Perhaps there was something about HOW he said it?  If a priest appeared to be somewhat effeminate, registering on the gaydar, as it were, THEN such importunity might be considered suspect.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 21895
    • Reputation: +12047/-6069
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Emile "Francis Miller
    « Reply #20 on: July 18, 2020, 03:13:08 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Why wouldn't he go into detail? Why is everyone being so vague about it? How are we to know it isn't slander? That's all sedevacantist do is slander each other. What better way to thin the competition than by casting doubt about them with children especially little boys. You can't even find any thing not even a police report, of there's always the possibility of someone not wanting to talk but still unless someone witnessed something or was told something by a "victim" themselves than this is slander

    Stop making this about sedevacantism.  SSPX and R&R have had their share of predators, some of whom appear to have been protected by the leadership there.

    Anonymous

    • Guest
    Re: Emile "Francis Miller
    « Reply #21 on: July 18, 2020, 03:18:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Imagine a scenario where a pedophile were to confess sins in this regard.  How difficult would it be for the priest who heard the confession not to say anything as he watched the person cozying up to children.  It would be sheer torture.

    I've always wondered about the extent of the confessional seal.  So, for instance, if I'm a priest and I see a parent asking the pedophile if he could, say, give his young son a ride home from an event.  Could the priest jump in and say, "Hey, don't worry about it.  I'm going out anyway and I'd be happy to take him home."

    Offline Struthio

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1377
    • Reputation: +359/-270
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Emile "Francis Miller
    « Reply #22 on: July 18, 2020, 04:49:06 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, Quo Vadis Domine. The reputation of the sedevacantist priest and the movement in general is far more important than the innocence of the children.

    The ends don't justify the means.
    Men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple ... Jerome points this out. (St. Robert Bellarmine)


    Anonymous

    • Guest
    Re: Emile "Francis Miller
    « Reply #23 on: July 18, 2020, 05:32:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The ends don't justify the means.
    I think anonymous was speaking tongue in cheek to Quo Vadis Domine.

    Anonymous

    • Guest
    Re: Emile "Francis Miller
    « Reply #24 on: July 19, 2020, 07:03:51 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • What a sad situation for everyone, and I understand why a parent would attempt to find answers on a forum such as this one. 

    As pointed out earlier, some wolves hide in the SSPX, R&R, and sedevacantism. It seems to me that the wild-west of sedevacantism where tracing who consecrated which bishop and who ordained this priest is a dizzying path makes hiding easier. Some sedevacantist priests who call themselves independent and will offer the information of their ordination freely, but what if they are lying? There are also sedevacantist priests in the U.S. who claim to have a bishop in Mexico, or Europe and language barriers would preclude a concerned parent from making contact. Traditionalists on this forum have a wealth of knowledge and as trail-blazers and can say who is safe and who to avoid.
    Therefore, we cannot judge the intention of a person asking about this or any other Traditionalist priest. If we know with certainty about a priest's character, we should comment.
    Finally, if you do not know the person in question, refrain from commenting on the thread.
    It would be irresponsible of a parent not to make inquiries about any adult their child comes into contact with at church, school, even their doctor.




    Anonymous

    • Guest
    Re: Emile "Francis Miller
    « Reply #25 on: July 20, 2020, 08:03:20 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Imagine a scenario where a pedophile were to confess sins in this regard.  How difficult would it be for the priest who heard the confession not to say anything as he watched the person cozying up to children.  It would be sheer torture.

    I've always wondered about the extent of the confessional seal.  So, for instance, if I'm a priest and I see a parent asking the pedophile if he could, say, give his young son a ride home from an event.  Could the priest jump in and say, "Hey, don't worry about it.  I'm going out anyway and I'd be happy to take him home."
    As it turns out, it seems this is exactly what happened between Three SSPX priests — Fr. Todd Angele, Fr. Herve de la Tour and Fr. Kenneth Novak in Kansas and Peter Palmeri.  Seems they all refused to help one of Palmeri's abuse victims, who was molested from age 8–15.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 21895
    • Reputation: +12047/-6069
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Emile "Francis Miller
    « Reply #26 on: July 20, 2020, 02:01:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • As it turns out, it seems this is exactly what happened between Three SSPX priests — Fr. Todd Angele, Fr. Herve de la Tour and Fr. Kenneth Novak in Kansas and Peter Palmeri.  Seems they all refused to help one of Palmeri's abuse victims, who was molested from age 8–15.

    I was under the impression that they received information outside the Confessional.  Even the CM report admitted that Father Novak advised the man who spoke to him to inform the authorities.  If that man refused, Father Novak himself could not do much, since his information was hearsay from said man.  I got the impression that this man DID then go to the authorities who, for whatever reason, did not take action.  CM implies that it was because they too were under pressure from some quarters, but they cited no evidence for this.  Fr. Todd Angele has categorically denied the claim that he advised them NOT to tell the authorities because it would cause scandal.  And perhaps there was a he-said-she-said angle to this case where there was little corroborating proof.  Who knows?  All I know is that CM did an incredibly sloppy job with the deliberate aim of making everyone look as guilty as possible ... including the insinuation that Fr. Novak broke up marriages due to romantic designs for the disaffected wife.


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16