Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Anonymous Posts Allowed => Topic started by: Anonymous on June 28, 2020, 10:47:36 AM

Title: Emile "Francis Miller
Post by: Anonymous on June 28, 2020, 10:47:36 AM
Different threads on this forum contain the warning Keep your children away. Families dropped by James Kosek who are thinking about attending the Mass said by Miller do have children.  If this allegation is true and can be substantiated this information needs to come out.
Title: Re: Emile "Francis Miller
Post by: Anonymous on June 29, 2020, 08:56:18 AM
I've seen these allegations on here too, if someone is going to to make such a claim than it's their duty to disclose the nature and sources of the claims for the sake of our Catholic parents and their children 
Title: Re: Emile "Francis Miller
Post by: Anonymous on June 29, 2020, 03:19:24 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Emile "Francis Miller
Post by: Anonymous on July 15, 2020, 02:09:27 PM
Another charlatan in search of a bishop's hat. A dangerous charlatan because two or three times on this very forum people have made allegations against by warning parents to keep their children away from him. If the persons who have knowledge of him acting inappropriately only give this whispered warning and fail to speak out loudly about who he is they should be ashamed.
Somebody on this forum knows about him but hides in the shadows thereby allowing children to possibly be in danger.
Pretending to be a sedevacantist/independent priest is the perfect place for sexual predators to hide.
Title: Re: Emile "Francis Miller
Post by: Anonymous on July 15, 2020, 09:27:59 PM
Pretending to be a sedevacantist/independent priest is the perfect place for sexual predators to hide.
You mean like:
- Fr. Marshall Robert's (aka Fr. Mary of the Pillar)
- "Fr." Tetherow
- "Fr." Cordaro
- "b." Moran
- Fr. Clay
- "Fr" Ensey
- Fr. Frédéric Abbet, 
- Fr. James McLucas
- Fr. Perrone
- Fr. Abraham
- Fr. Philippe Peignot
- Fr. James McLucas. 
Etc....?
Others?
I was told by a sedevecanti bishop to watch my children around Fr. Miller.  The bishop did not go into details.  I trust his judgement.
Title: Re: Emile "Francis Miller
Post by: Anonymous on July 16, 2020, 07:31:53 AM
We must shout this from the rooftop. These men seek to devour our children's souls.
Title: Re: Emile "Francis Miller
Post by: Anonymous on July 17, 2020, 06:13:20 PM
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 
Title: Re: Emile "Francis Miller
Post by: Anonymous on July 17, 2020, 09:30:50 PM
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
The bishop who told me wasn't a sede bishop at the time he told me, but he is one now.  At the time he told me about Fr. Miller, he was an ex-SSPX independent priest. 
If wasn't as though the priest refused to go into detail.  I have no details because I didn't ask for any.  I trusted this priest, and still do, so there was no need for me to ask for more details.
Whether or not I have details, I am always grateful when a priest I am associated with cautions me about another priest.  I would rather be safe than sorry. 
Title: Re: Emile "Francis Miller
Post by: Anonymous on July 18, 2020, 06:10:37 AM
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 slanTh
The children's safety comes first. Abusers never admit what they do, instead, they claim victim status for themselves. So, it really is simple, keep your child away or look for excuses to remain by this man. At that point, it becomes your fault for putting your child in danger. 
Title: Re: Emile "Francis Miller
Post by: Quo vadis Domine on July 18, 2020, 07:35:01 AM
I don’t know Fr. Miller at all, but the anonymous poster is the real scandal here. If you have real proof then expose him, if not, keep your backbiting mouth shut. Remember, you will be held accountable for this if these accusations aren’t true or are exaggerated.
Title: Re: Emile "Francis Miller
Post by: Anonymous on July 18, 2020, 08:41:02 AM
Silence breeds consent. Victims remain anonymous for their safety.
Title: Re: Emile "Francis Miller
Post by: Anonymous on July 18, 2020, 11:16:49 AM
I don’t know Fr. Miller at all, but the anonymous poster is the real scandal here. If you have real proof then expose him, if not, keep your backbiting mouth shut. Remember, you will be held accountable for this if these accusations aren’t true or are exaggerated.
In this day when perverse priests seem to run rampant in independent circles, it seems charitable to warn people.  
I assume a religious would be careful not to say anything against another religious unless he had pretty concrete proof, for he/she will be judged more harshly than laity.
I understand why some refuse to attach their name to their warnings.  Perhaps they fear being sued as Mr. Pfeiffer was sued by Pablo the Mexican who is with Fr. Pfeiffer (no relation) and runs OLMC, using OLMC  donations, over his statements (all of which were already online) regarding his warnings to the Faithful of Fr. Marshall Roberts (Fr. Mary of the Pillar) who is working with Fr. Pfeiffer and is stationed in either Portales NM (last I heard) or Arizona (possibly both).  Even if the case is thrown out of court, it is still quite costly and time consuming. 
Title: Re: Emile "Francis Miller
Post by: Anonymous on July 18, 2020, 11:30:45 AM
I was talking to a NO Bishop and he said people talk about us and the homosexuals well there are just as many in the trad circle. I know many of them. The problem is no one is going to come forward and expose any of the other issues. About 10 years ago different dioceses released the names of Priests as far back as the early 60's that were involved in different scandals. From Affairs to money issues I can almost guarantee you will not find this anywhere else.
Title: Re: Emile "Francis Miller
Post by: Quo vadis Domine on July 18, 2020, 12:50:03 PM
Silence breeds consent. Victims remain anonymous for their safety.
And unrepentant backbiters and talebearers go to hell. A suggestion, don’t spread anonymous and unsupported rumors unless you have proof to back it up.
Title: Re: Emile "Francis Miller
Post by: Anonymous on July 18, 2020, 01:26:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: Emile "Francis Miller
Post by: Anonymous on July 18, 2020, 01:28:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: Emile "Francis Miller
Post by: 2Vermont on July 18, 2020, 01:31:24 PM
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.  
Title: Re: Emile "Francis Miller
Post by: Anonymous on July 18, 2020, 01:41:33 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Emile "Francis Miller
Post by: Quo vadis Domine on July 18, 2020, 01:42:45 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Emile "Francis Miller
Post by: Ladislaus on July 18, 2020, 03:11:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: Emile "Francis Miller
Post by: Ladislaus on July 18, 2020, 03:13:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: Emile "Francis Miller
Post by: Anonymous on July 18, 2020, 03:18:45 PM
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."
Title: Re: Emile "Francis Miller
Post by: Struthio on July 18, 2020, 04:49:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: Emile "Francis Miller
Post by: Anonymous on July 18, 2020, 05:32:56 PM
The ends don't justify the means.
I think anonymous was speaking tongue in cheek to Quo Vadis Domine.
Title: Re: Emile "Francis Miller
Post by: Anonymous on July 19, 2020, 07:03:51 AM
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.



Title: Re: Emile "Francis Miller
Post by: Anonymous on July 20, 2020, 08:03:20 AM
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 (https://stjosephs-academy.com/en/principal-at-st-joseph-academy), Fr. Herve de la Tour and Fr. Kenneth Novak (https://smac.edu/en/religious-staff-st-marys-priory) in Kansas and Peter Palmeri.  Seems they all refused to help one of Palmeri's abuse victims, who was molested from age 8–15.
Title: Re: Emile "Francis Miller
Post by: Ladislaus on July 20, 2020, 02:01:20 PM
As it turns out, it seems this is exactly what happened between Three SSPX priests — Fr. Todd Angele (https://stjosephs-academy.com/en/principal-at-st-joseph-academy), Fr. Herve de la Tour and Fr. Kenneth Novak (https://smac.edu/en/religious-staff-st-marys-priory) 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.