What we do know for sure is that these allegations exist, he was transferred out of St. Marys to an all boys boarding school, and that his mannerisms are effeminate.

If I had a son at La Salette Academy I would be very concerned.

So is he "interested" in boys, or in girls?  In terms of being "transferred out", that's pretty much every other SSPX priest every other year.

I love all the Anonymous cowards too that hurl calumnies on an Anonymous thread (including the OP here).

Until you have the guts to reveal yourself, you have no business issuing such slanders.

"What we do know for sure ..." is absolutely nothing other than your insinuations.

What we do know for sure is that these allegations exist, he was transferred out of St. Marys to an all boys boarding school, and that his mannerisms are effeminate.

If I had a son at La Salette Academy I would be very concerned.

So, I don't know this priest, so in order to evaluate your allegations here, I went to watch the interview, and I declare this post of yours to be nothing short of slander and calumny.


He's not at all overtly "effeminate".  While that doesn't preclude various proclivities contrary to nature, this characterization of him is slanderous.  Just because he's slightly-built, doesn't speak in a bass voice (though it's not super high or soft either), that does notmake his mannerisms "effeminate".  He comes across, rather, as more "nerdy" (perhaps, and I hesitate to use that term, since it's also somewhat uncharitable, but in the interests of defending him against this smear of yours) ... and noticeably very "fidgety", like he's somewhat nervous and high-strung (which could explain Niles' characterization of his being extremely nervous in the police interview).  Most people would be nervious under thoes circuмstances, but I can see Father here having his "baseline" tendency to already be high-strung and fidgety amplified by the stress of such a situation.

He also comes across as very bright and articulate, absolutely nothing like how he came across in his text, and then mentions how his assignments since his ordination have entailed working with the youth ... so putting those two together, it makes it all the more likely that he was deliberately just trying to sound "cool" in the text messages.  It's the same thing I mentioned with the other priest, where his natural mode of speaking and expression with adults was completely different than what I witneesed when he was among some teenagers, and that's a clear indication that he's "trying" to act that way.

Finally, as I already pointed out, the contradiction (in 99% of all cases) betewen his being "interested" in predating upon boys vs. being "interested" in predating upon girls.  It's rarely both, but nearly always one OR the other, and trying to smear him as both smacks of total lack of charity.

Now, one should be careful not to leave children alone with ANY priest, since not every sodomite shows open signs of effeminacy, and some of the non-effeminate ones actually despise the effeminate "lissthping" limp-wristed ones.  You never know really, and many have been fooled by some priest who appeared to be pious and devout, etc.  Some of the priests end up having many of the laity they served defend them tooth and nail because no one could believe that such a "holy priest" could have done such at thing.  You can't go on appeareances.  But I reject your slander that Father Kopec has "effeminate mannerisms".  I've seen all kinds of men with somewhat "softer", less aggressive, demeanors being accused of being "effeminate" ... knowing the charges to be pure calumny.  They're usually hurled by individuals who consider themselves (in their ego) to be extremely "macho" ... when in most cases they're not and just projecting their own wishful thinking.

I also believe that every post like this above that is made by an "Anonymous" should be deleted, whether it's about sɛҳuąƖ matters or not, such as the one Anonymous buffoon who came on here slandering another SSPX priest by name without giving any evidence or details.

Engaging in this behavior could constitute grave sin for calumny and slander.

It’s shocking how few Catholics seem to realize that calumny and slander can be grave sins (ie damnable). 

Spreading rumors and making assumptions in serious matters can be a grave sin.  Killing/attacking another’s reputation (unless you are their superior, with all the info) is a grave sin. 

Just a reminder, in case you forgot such from catechism class.

Right, and I believe that this tendency to minimize such accusations and hurl them with abandon comes from their reaction against the grave crime of sɛҳuąƖ predation, thinking that they're justified in making the accusation on the flimsiest of evidence because the alternative is so horrible.  That's simply not the case.  We see this in the courts as well, where juries often wrongly convict individuals simply because the crime was so horrific that a "not guilty" verdict would be perceived as condoning the crime and letting it go unpunished.  Due to the emotional states evoked by the gravity of the crime, they are unable to rationally separate the horror of the crime from the simple question of whether THIS INDIVIDUAL HERE acftually did it.  PS -- it's a reason that there should be no women jurors, just as women shouldn't be allowed to vote.  So they feel that because predation (especially upon children) is so horrible that this justifies hurling accusations even if you have some even-unfounded suspicion.  Now, sometimes the accusers even explicitly appeal to this fallacy, where they try to claim that those who don't believe their allegations are condoning the crime (begging the question that it took place at all and whether the accused is guilty of it).  Niles absolutely tried to gaslight anyone who questioned her allegations as enabling, abetting, and at the very least condoning sɛҳuąƖ predation.  That too by itself constitutes slander.  Just because I don't believe YOU, Niles, and this or that particular allegation of yours does not mean I "condone" that which you accuse the individual of, only that I don't believe that the individual did it.

Similarly, simply because the SSPX might not believe every allegation along these lines doesn't necessarily mean that it's "covering up" a crime.  There is in fact some very serious consideration that needs to be given to the priest and the possibly unjust smearing of his reputation.  And once an allegation is out there, even if the individual were found innocent after a thorough investigation, short of the accuser recanting the accusation, the person's name will absolutely forever be tainted or stained.  Who now in having read these allegations from Niles or the Anonymous posters on this thread will ever look at Father Kopec the same way.  Let's say that he's completely innocent ... of anything other than imprudence.  What, then, have the accusers done to him unjustly?

There needs to be a balance, obviously, where it there are credible allegations where you at least quietly remove the priest from a situation where he might pose a danger until the matter could be clared up.  This doesn't mean you're "covering up" sex crimes, but merely attempting to balance the rights of the accuser and a potential threat posed by the accused with the rights of the accused to his good name (in case the allegations end up being false).

While not a priest on minor assault, back in 2017, when the scandal in Post Falls happened, the Society attempted to send the responsible priest out of the country to France. The lay people caught wind of this priest coming and said in no uncertain terms that there was no way in hell they were allowing him there and he returned to the US. And where is he now? Teaching Moral Theology at the seminary in Virginia.


The Society protects themselves above all else. I suspect that the moment +Fellay should ever step foot on French soil, the French government would be very interested in "questioning" him after Fr Rostand's testimony in court last summer. 

BTW, by no means am I saying that SSPX are not guilty of various coverups (I've said that +Fellay should be arrested and prosecuted for a couple of them), just that one cannot simply take Niles' or (formerly) Church Militant's word for it, since they have been known to distort, exaggerate, and lie in the service of an agenda to attack Traditional Catholicism ... and that we must find a balance between the priest's right to a good name and good reputation and any potential victims.

Unfortunately, the reaction against coverups is to go in the opposite direction and call for the immediate lynching and crucifixion of any priest who's accused by Niles of misconduct.  Take the case of Cardinal Pell, for instance, or others that were convicted in the court of public opinion on the basis of the allegation alone.  At least in his case, they were able to exonerate him conclusively ... but that doesn't always happen, and even when there isn't enough evidence to convict, the allegation alone suffices to tarnish the individual's reputation for life.  "Well, although they couldn't prove it in a court of law, there's still a chance that he did it."  Yet, even with Pell, they were still abusing the poor man's remains after death, despite his conclusive (without a shadow of doubt) exoneration.

Niles has slandered some priests (including Archbishop Lefebvre), and if she does occasionally get one right, it's mostly by accident, like the proverbial blind squirrel finding a nut, and she does not deserve any respect or any presumption of being objective and honest.  She's proven otherwise.  For all her crusade to go after sodomites and other predators, she did nothing about Voris when he got back to his old tricks at CM ... only finally resigning right before it was about to blow up and go public.  When she described later what had been going on, Voris had clearly been at it for a long time before she had no choice but to quit.  Where was her investigation of Voris? ... in the interests of protecting those who might be victimized by his predations unless he were outed?